The court upheld that attachment orders must comply with principles of natural justice, emphasizing the necessity of granting parties the opportunity to be heard before such actions are taken.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr A Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr M Sharma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

2. Taking into account that the present proceedings is directed against an order passed by the respondent No. 4, who passed the said in exercise of his powers under Section 28 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act of 1993”), the name of respondent No. 4 is struck off.

3. The petitioners herein, have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 31.01.2019, whereby the learned Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, had attached the mortgaged property described in the Recovery Certificate.

4. The case of the petitioners in short is that the learned Recovery Officer had passed the order dated 31.01.2019, without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and merely, on a prayer being made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3, who is the Certificate Holder.

5. To ascertain the legality and validity of the order dated 31.01.2019, and the subsequent order of attachment issued on the same date, enclosed as Annexures-XXXIII and XXXIV, this Court finds it relevant to take note of, briefly, the facts infra-

6. The respondent No. 3 had filed an application, being Original Application No. 212/2012, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (for short, “the learned Tribunal”), seeking a Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs. 21,08,017.83 (Rupees Twenty-One Lacs Eight Thousand Seventeen and Eighty-Three Paise Only), along with future interest @ 11.75%, till realization with cost charges etc. The learned Tribunal vide a detailed Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2017, issued the Recovery Certificate in favour of the respondent No. 3, for a sum of Rs. 21,08,017.83 against the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, jointly and severally, with pendentilite and future interest @ 10 % per annum, with quarterly rest till realization and the cost of the application.

7. In addition to that, the learned Tribunal also ordered that the difference of interest so calculated on reducing balance on deposit of amount be also reduced from the amount under the certificate and the respondent No. 3 was directed to file revised statement of account before the learned Recovery Officer. It was also observed that there shall be a charge of the certificate amount, which shall be kept alive on the mortgaged property, till the amount is realized in full, under the certificate.

8. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of that, this charge so created, vide the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2017, on the mortgaged property, is the property which has been attached, vide the impugned order.

9. The record further reveals that proceedings have been filed by the respondent No. 3, before the learned Tribunal, which is presently pending. On 31.01.2019, the Advocate of the respondent No. 3 filed an application in Original Application No. 212/2012, with the following contents, which are reproduced hereinbelow-

“That the Advocate to the applicant is present today (dated 31:01.2019) before Your Honour

AND

Further to submit herewith that all the action taken and/or resorted by the Certificate Holder Bank under SARFAESI Act, had been withdrawn and hence, prayed before Your Honour to proceed in the matter as per law

AND

Further to submit herein, that all the OTS proposal of the Judgment Debtors have been rejected by t