IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that claims based on forged documents and false representations will not be countenanced, and the court emphasized the importance of evidence to support claims of ownership.

ORDER :

UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.

1. This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRAT’) in Appeal No.78 of 2014. A prayer for interim order of staying the operation, effect and implementation of the same is also prayed for, with further making interim prayer not to proceed against the property described as third floor “Shailabh” Building, near Sunrise Park, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad along with even status quo qua third floor as well, in Recovery Proceedings No.388 before the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRT’).

2. The brief facts, as coming out from the impugned order, can be summarized as under:

2.1. Oriental Bank of Commerce had filed Original Application (hereinafter referred to as OA) against M/s Kashiparekh Construction Private Limited & Ors. for recovery of Rs.54,01,670/-. The OA was allowed on 30.03.2000 as per the consent terms filed by the parties. The copy of consent terms though not produced separately, it has been mentioned extensively in the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer of ‘DRT’ in OA No.94 of 1999. Though OA was filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce, on its merger, it came to be known as Punjab National Bank now. Since the original borrower defaulted in making payment as per the agreed terms, Recovery Proceedings came to be initiated by the Certified Creditor. The present petitioner was neither a borrower nor a guarantor. He claimed to have purchased a property consisting of the third floor of Kashiparekh Construction Private Limited, 29 Adarsh Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad from M/s Kashiparekh’s Constriction Private Limited – a Certified Debtor by payment of Rs.11,000/- initially on 14.12.1998 and a further sum of Rs.21,000/- on 12.06.1999. An agreement by and between original borrower and the petitioner, as claimed by the petitioner, entered into dated 22.07.1999 and on the same date, an allotment letter was issued followed by a possession letter on 28.07.1999. Thus, the present petitioner claimed to be in exclusive possession of the said property. The respondent – Bank published a notice in Gujarat Samachar on 14.08.1999 stating that the Certified Debtors had created a negative lien over the said property. According to the petitioner, the property was never mortgaged by the Certified Debtors and there is no existing charge over the property.

2.2. Therefore, the petitioner filed an objection Exhibit – T/75 before the Recovery Officer to declare that the property was free from encumbrances or charges. The respondent – Bank filed a Reply denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the petitioner has not paid any sale consideration towards the purchase of the property and no title was conveyed to him. The Recovery Officer, vide order dated 15.05.2008, rejected the claim made by the petitioner.

2.3. Being aggrieved by the order of Recovery Officer, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ahmedabad under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 w.e.f. 01.12.2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1993’). The DRT-I, Ahmedabad, vide judgment and order dated 16.08.2013, allowed the Appeal No.9 of 2009 preferred by the petitioner under Section 30 of ‘the Act, 1993’ and allowed the prayers A, B and C made in the Appeal memo, essentially quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.05.2008 passed by the Recovery Officer in Recovery Proceedings No.388 below Exhibit T/75. At the same time, attachment over the property in question i.e. third floor and terrace right in building known as “Shailabh”, came to be attached on the ground as recovery certificate as well as judgment of OA are silent regarding property in question, Recovery Officer