1. The present Appeal No. 192 of 2014 has been filed by the Appellant/Defendant No. 2 Gautam Govindlal Shah under Section 20 of the “Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the RDDB & FI Act”)” challenging the Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "DRT") in Original Application (O.A.) No. 10 of 1997.

2. The Respondent Bank of Baroda had filed O.A. No. 10 of 1997 before DRT-I, Ahmedabad, for recovery of a sum of ₹44,22,993.88p from the Appellant/Defendant No.2 [sole proprietor of M/s Polytex Synthetics (Defendant No. 1)] and other defendants. The claim was in respect of multiple credit facilities sanctioned by the Bank to the proprietorship firm of the Appellant/Defendant No. 2 after creation of an equitable mortgage of personal property and against guarantors Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 were drawees of bills of exchange drawn by Defendant No. 1.

3. The Appellant/Defendant No. 2 availed of multiple credit facilities from the Bank since 1991. The liabilities were reviewed, sanctioned and renewed in the year 1994, and fresh documents were executed. Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 executed guarantee agreements. Appellant/Defendant No. 2 deposited title deeds of his property as collateral security. Since Appellant/Defendant No. 2 defaulted in repayment, the Bank filed O.A. No. 10 of 1997 seeking a recovery certificate and enforcement of securities.

4. Before the DRT-I, Ahmedabad, Appellant/Defendants No. 2 appeared and filed reply (Exhibit R/13) admitting the sanctioning and disbursement of multiple credit facilities and execution of documents as security but denied that interest charged was proper and alleging that the Bank had not released the full sanctioned amount, thereby causing loss to the business. The remaining defendants remained ex-parte. The DRT-I, Ahmedabad, by its Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2006, allowed O.A. No. 10 of 1997 with costs.

5. It is pertinent to note that even in the O.A. proceedings, Mr. Praful J. Bhatt appeared for the Appellant/Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 before the DRT. Thereafter, Mr. Devesh Bhatt filed a fresh vakalat for the Appellant/Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. On 15.02.2006, the Appellant/Defendant No. 2 himself applied for adjournment stating his counsel was not available. The DRT adjourned the matter to 17.03.2006. On that date the Learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 26.04.2006. On 26.04.2006, the DRT heard the Applicant/Bank’s counsel in O.A. and noted that none appeared for Appellant/Defendant No. 2. The O.A. was thereafter fixed for judgment on 06.06.2006, however in the intervening period neither the Appellant/Defendant No. 2 nor his counsel sought any opportunity to be heard.

6. After issuance of the Recovery Certificate, Respondent Bank of Baroda filed Recovery Proceedings No. 220 of 2006 before the Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Ahmedabad. A demand notice was issued on 23.08.2007 to all certified debtors including the Appellant/Defendant No. 2. The Appellant/ Defendant No. 2 participated in the recovery proceedings. When the mortgaged property was put up for sale by the Recovery Officer, the Appellant/Defendant No. 2 challenged the auction. The Recovery Officer refused to entertain the challenge and that order was challenged by the Appellant/ Defendant No. 2 under Section 30 of the RDDB & FI Act before the Presiding Officer in Appeal No. 10 of 2011, which was dismissed.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2006, the Appellant/Defendant No. 2 filed CMA No. 57 of 2009 under Section 26 of the RDDB & FI Act before DRT-I, Ahmedabad, seeking to set aside the final order and to be allowed to be heard in the O.A. However, the CMA No. 57 of 2009 was dismissed by DRT-I vide its order dated 01.05.2012.

8. Simultaneously, SARFAESI Act proceedings were also initiated by the Bank i