IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF th ON THE 7 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 146 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

DINESH LILWANI S/O LATE NATHULAL LILWANI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, PLOT NO. 70 WARD NO. 4 AMARNATH HOUSING SOCIETY AMARNATH COLONY DHAMKHEDA KOLAR ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SHEKHAR SHARMA-ADVOCATE )

AND

1. CANARA BANK THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER SPLSD ARMBRANCH CANARA BANK BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. M/S SHRIMATI THE BEG SAREE MALL THROUGH ITS PARTNERS SUNDARI LILWANI RAMESH LILWANI DINESH LILWANI MANISH LILWANI AND VIJAY LILWANI SITUATED AT 20 NEW MARKET BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUNADARI LILWANI W/O LATE NATHULAL LILWANI NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. MANISH LILWANI S/O LATE NATHULAL LILWANI NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. VIJAY LILWANI S/O LATE NATHULAL LILWANI NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SMT. SIMRAN LILWANI W/O SHRI RAMESH LILWANI NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. RECOVERY OFFICER I DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified

8. VATSALYA KUMAR RECOVERY TRIBUNAL JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR CHATURVEDI-ADVOCATE )

This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Vinay Saraf passed the following:

ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

2. Petitioner, who is borrower has preferred this petition under Article

227 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by Recovery Officer-I, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in R.C. No.533/2018. whereby various objections raised by petitioner against public auction of mortgaged properties held on 17.8.2023 were rejected and auction was confirmed and made absolute.

3. Brief facts suffice to decide present petition are that petitioner availed various credit/loan facilities from respondent no.1, Canara Bank and for securing loan amount mortgaged various properties. However, due to heavy losses, he applied for rescheduling of the payment conditions and/or one time settlement which was not accepted by Bank and Bank initiated recovery proceedings by filing original application (OA) NO.696/2017 before Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was allowed on 4.8.2018 and recovery certificate was issued by DRT.

3.1. Recovery officer registered Recovery Case No.533/2018 and started recovery proceedings and initiated for auction of various mortgaged properties by issuing auction notice dated 6.7.2023. Thereafter, petitioner filed detailed objections on 11.8.2023, 31.8.2023 and 17.10.2023 mainly on the ground of fixation of reserved price of properties and initiation of auction Signature Not Verified proceedings without following procedure prescribed under Rule 53 of 2nd Schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961. Recovery officer rejected objections by impugned order dated 21.12.2023 which is assailed by certificate debtor i.e.

petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India in the present petition. 4. Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner vehemently submits that recovery officer under valued properties and fixed reserved price ignoring earlier valuation report with malafide intention to sell properties at hopelessly lower price. He has pointed out by referring copy of sale deed of one of the properties, which was purchased on 31.3.2013 for consideration of Rs.84 lacs, but reserved price was fixed at Rs.42 lacs even after considerable period of nine years.

4.1 Learned counsel submits that valuation of all other properties are also not true and correct. He further submits that objections were decided by the recovery officer in a manner which amounts to abuse of process of law. It is also submitted that proper opportunity to address on objections were not extended to certificate debtor and rejoinder filed by petitioner on 18.12.2013 was also not considered.

4.2 Shri Sharma prays for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 21.12.2023 (Annexure P-9). He has also tried to point ou