AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 290 wordsManoj Kumar Gupta, CJ
The petitioner has assailed the bidding process undertaken by the Recovery Officer for executing the decree dated 16.02.2023, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No. 307 of 2022, whereunder a sum of Rs.2,18,03,038.06 (Rupees Two Crore Eighteen Lakh Three Thousand and Thirty Eight and paise 06 only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 7% is to be realized from the proprietorship concern of the petitioner. The contention is that there was only a single bid and, therefore, it ought not to have been confirmed.
Learned counsel for respondent no.1-Bank as raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. He further submits that as per the provision of Section 30 (A), Appeal would be entertained only if the person filing the appeal has deposited with the Tribunal 50% of the amount of debt due as determined by the Tribunal. The submission thus is that the petitioner who owes a considerable sum to the Bank cannot be permitted to bypass the statutory remedy and stipulations.
As it is not disputed before us that the petitioner has suffered a decree whereunder he has to pay considerable sum to the respondent-Bank and which amount has not been paid, and efficacious and alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the Act itself, therefore, we are not inclined to examine the challenge in exercise of writ jurisdiction. We leave it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy, if so advised.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.