IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery Officer and Presiding Officer both have power to add name of assignee in recovery certificate.

S.J. Vazifdar, J.— Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally.

2. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 23rd October, 2012, passed by the Recovery Officer suo moto recalling an order dated 20th August, 2005, also passed by a Recovery Officer.

3. The case in a nutshell is this. A recovery certificate dated 26th February, 2004 was issued inter-alia in favour of the ICICI Bank Limited under The Recovery of Debts Due Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “DRT Act”). ICICI assigned the debt to the petitioner. On the petitioner’s application, the Recovery Officer by an order dated dated 20th August, 2005, added the name of the petitioner in the recovery certificate in the place of ICICI. Over seven years later, another Recovery Officer by the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2012, suo moto recalled the order dated 20th August, 2005 on the basis that only the Presiding Officer and not the Recovery Officer had jurisdiction to add the name of the assignee in the recovery certificate. We have come to the conclusion that a Recovery Officer has jurisdiction to bring on record an assignee of the debt in the place of the judgment-creditor / holder of a recovery certificate issued by the DRT or the DRAT, as the case may be.

4. Respondent No.1 is the Official Liquidator of Hukumchand Mills Limited. Respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(d) are the heirs of one Kamlesh Agarwal and respondent No.3 is one Ramesh Chandra Agarwal. We will, for the sake of convenience refer to respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(d) as “respondent No.2”. Respondent No.4 is the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are guarantors against whom the Recovery Certificate was issued. Respondent No.10 is the Union of India. Respondent Nos.5 to 9 are the State Bank of India, State Bank of Indore, IDBI Limited, IDBI Bank Limited and IFCI Limited. Respondent Nos.8 and 10 who appeared before us did not oppose the petition.

5. Considering the issues involved, the merits of the matter between the borrowers on the one hand and the petitioner and the other financial institutions on the other, are not relevant. The relevant facts are these.

(A) (i) Respondent No.1 availed of various credit facilities from respondent Nos.5 to 9 and ICICI. The repayment of the amounts due under these facilities was secured, inter-alia, by guarantees issued by respondent Nos.2 to 4 and by the mortgage and hypothecation of the assets of respondent No.1.

(ii) In the year 1995, respondent Nos.5 to 9 and ICICI filed Suit No.2084 of 1995 in this Court which was, in the year 2001, transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai.

(iii) On 26th February, 2004, the Original Application was allowed and the Recovery Certificate was issued in favour of all the lenders. Pursuant to it, recovery proceedings No.197 of 2004 commenced before the Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Mumbai.

(B) (i) On 29th September, 2004, ICICI assigned the debt due to it from respondent No.1 as awarded under the recovery certificate in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an application before the Recovery Officer for substituting itself in the place of ICICI. By the said order dated 29th August, 2005, the application was allowed and the petitioner was brought on record in place of ICICI. The Recovery Certificate, accordingly, stood amended.

(ii) The petitioner has thereafter been prosecuting the recovery proceedings and enforcing its rights as the assignee.

(a) The petitioner, for instance, filed an application to bring itself on record in an appeal filed by respondent No.4 challenging an order dated 26th February, 2004, which was allowed by an order dated 3rd April, 2007.

(b) The petitioner was also permitted to represent itself before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a Company Petition wherein respondent No.1 was ordered to be wound up.

(c) Although it is not decisive of the issues raised in the present case, it is significant to no