JUDGMENT

NAJMI WAZRI, J.

1. This petition seeks quashing of the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, ('DRT') Delhi, dated 06.05.2019 passed in O.A. No. 347 of 2014 and the orders of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal ('DRAT') dated 07.08.2019 as well as 11.10.2019 passed in Appeal No. 341 of 2019, including all proceedings initiated under the Recovery Certificate No.246 of 2019 dated 15.05.2019.

2. On 13.01.2020, the following order was passed by this Court:-

"1. xxx

2.xxx

3.Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that against the order dated 7th August, 2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in Appeal No.341/2019, filed by the present Petitioner, whereby the Petitioner's plea for waiver of pre-deposit was rejected, no steps were taken by the Petitioner at that stage. It is M/s. Hassan Foods, (sic Hassad) of which the Petitioner was the former Chairperson, which came before this Court with W.P. (C) 9578/2019 in which the present Petitioner was a proforma Respondent. The dismissal of that writ petition by this Court by its order dated 4th September, 2019 stands affirmed by the Supreme Court by the dismissal on 15th November, 2019 of the SLP filed against the said order.

4. The case of the present Petitioner is that even in the averments by the Respondent Bank in its original application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) there was no case of the present Petitioner having either himself borrowed any money or stood as a guarantor for the loan advanced to Bush Foods Overseas Private Limited. He accordingly submits that the Petitioner being neither the borrower nor a guarantor, there could not have been a mandatory requirement of pre-deposit qua him by the DRAT. The DRAT dismissed the Petitioner's appeal No.341/2019 on 11th October, 2019 for failure to comply with the order dated 7th August, 2019.

5. As a result of the above orders, recovery proceedings have been initiated against the original borrowers and guarantors as well as the present Petitioner in which directions have been issued on 14th November, 2019 and 17th December, 2019 by the Recovery Officer (RO) attached to DRT-II for inter alia, the arrest of the Petitioner.

6. Till the next date of hearing, no coercive steps be taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the orders dated 14th November, 2019 and 17th December, 2019 of the RO attached to the DRT-II."

3. It is the petitioner's (defendant No.3 in the OA) case that no personal liability against him was pleaded by the lender Bank in the OA, therefore, no personal or individual liability could have been cast upon nor could any relief have been granted to the creditor against him, as a sequitor the relief sought in para 6(i) of the OA is not made out.

4. Referring to para 5 of the impugned order dated 06.05.2019, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner (defendant No.3) submits that there is an obvious error of fact inasmuch as it has recorded that:-

"5. Defendants no.3 & 4 have filed their joint Written Statement submitting that defendant no.4 Hassad Food Company, Q.S.C. being represented by its authorized signatory / defendant no.3, acquired 69.5% of the issued share capital of defendant Company which was originally promoted by defendant no.2.....".

5. He further submits that (i) the petitioner (defendant No.3) never acquired any share capital, let alone majority stake in defendant No.4, (ii) that the petitioner is a natural person whereas defendant No.4 is an incorporated company, and (iii) the two cannot be equated as one entity. The acquisition of shares, as may be, by defendant No.4 is entirely of that entity and cannot be attributed to the petitioner (defendant No.3), who may at best have facilitated acquisition of legitimate business interests of D-4, as its authorized signatory.

6. The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner/Defendant No.3 places reliance on Space Enterprises v. M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises Ltd.

72 (1998) DLT 666, which while dealing with the lia