Urban Improvement Trust vs The Recovery Officer-I, Debts Recovery Tribunal and Others

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Urban Improvement Trust, Bhiwadi, challenging order dated 18.11.2014 passed by Recovery Officer-I, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, as also his earlier order dated 20.05.2010. Contention of learned Senior Counsel is that the Recovery Officer, vide order dated 20.05.2010 directed petitioner Urban Improvement Trust, Bhiwadi, to transfer documents of auctioned property in favour of auction purchaser Sunder Singh and by subsequent order dated 18.11.2014, the Recovery Officer has rejected the objection of the petitioner and called upon it to make compliance of his earlier order within seven days by transferring the documents in favour of the auction purchaser.

Shri Ravi Kiran Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, has argued that petitioner Urban Improvement Trust was not a party in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and that it requested the Branch Manager of the Union Bank of India, SDMH, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur, to let it know as to on what basis the loan was sanctioned to judgment-debtor and whether the disputed plot was mortgaged with them. The aforesaid Bank through its Advocate vide communication dated 05.12.2013 has sent reply to the petitioner that the said property was neither mortgaged with it nor the title deed of the same was ever deposited by Smt. Rashmi Bhargava or any other person with it and as such the loan was not sanctioned on the basis of title deed or the aforesaid property. There was thus no need for seeking permission of the Urban Improvement Trust.

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there are genuine disputes between the parties because in between Smt. Abha Agarwal had, by registered sale-deed dated 13/15.12.2006 sold the property in dispute by registered sale-deed to one Smt. Bharti Gupta and the documents have been transferred in the name of Bharti Gupta by petitioner Urban Improvement Trust on 29.03.2008. A Suit for injunction has also been filed by Smt. Bharti Gupta impleading the petitioner as well as Sunder Singh as defendants.

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Recovery Officer has not dealt with any of the arguments raised before him while deciding their objections by impugned order dated 18.11.2014 and has threatened with initiation of contempt proceedings against them, whereas he has no power of initiating contempt proceedings.

Learned Senior Counsel has cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association and Another, (2013) 3 AD 354 : (2013) 116 CLT 168 : (2013) 1 CompLJ 417 : (2013) 289 ELT 81 : (2013) 1 JT 618 : (2013) 1 SCALE 534 : (2013) 2 SCC 574 : (2013) 118 SCL 1 : (2013) AIRSCW 927 , and submitted that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the High Courts are empowered to exercise their jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to oversee the functioning of DRTs and DRATs. This power of superintendence also extends to administrative functioning of the Tribunals. It has been expected by the Supreme Court that the High Court shall keep a close watch on the functioning of DRTs and DRATs, which fall within their respective jurisdictions, and shall ensure a smooth, efficient and transparent working of the said Tribunals. This Court ought to therefore interfere with the matter.

Shri Ravi Kiran Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, alternatively submits that already petitioner Urban Improvement Trust in their written statement filed in the civil suit before the Civil Court has already taken the stand that the disputed plot has been auctioned by the Recovery Officer in favour of auction purchaser Sunder Singh and that in this behalf they have also served a notice on Smt. Bharti Gupta as to why documents be not transferred in his favour and therefore the Recovery Officer may at-least be required to extend the time to transfer the documents by at-least fifteen days.

As far as validity of the aforesaid two orders are concerned, the same are appealable under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 because those orders have been passed in pursuance of the proceedings of the auction held by the Recovery Officer to bestow the complete fruits/benefits of the auction in favour of the auction purchaser as without transferring the title documents auction proceedings cannot be said to be complete. The petitioner may, if it is so advised, avail its remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal now within fifteen days.

As regards the alternative plead, if the petitioner makes any such request before the Recovery Officer for extending the time at-least by fortnight to transfer the documents in favour of the auction purchaser, the Recovery Officer is expected to consider said request in the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner. With aforesaid observation and liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of. This also disposes of stay application.