Ramila Mahendrakumar Amin vs The Debt Recovery Tribunal, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4942 Guj

      C/SCA/6507/2023                              ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6507 of 2023
==========================================================
                     RAMILA MAHENDRAKUMAR AMIN
                               Versus
               THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASIM PANDYA, SR,ADVOCATE with MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
                       Date : 27/06/2023
                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Asim Pandya with learned advocate Mr.Jay Shah for the petitioner. Though served, none appears for the respondent.

2. In the present Special Civil Application, the petitioner has prayed to set aside order dated 8.2.2023 passed by the Recovery Officer- II, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I for auctioning the immovable property. The immovable property was Bungalow No.10-A, Sun City Bungalows, besides Railway Crossing, Patan Chansma High Way, Patan.

2.1 The auction was scheduled to take place on 12.4.2023. It was next prayed to set aside the attachment of the said bungalow occupied by the petitioner and her tenant and to remove the attachment. It was also prayed to declare that the judgment and decree passed against deceased Mahendrabhai Mohanbhai Amin and consequential proceedings that took place after his death, were nullity in law.

C/SCA/6507/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023

3. The aforesaid order dated 8.2.2023 of the Recovery Officer-II came to be passed in the execution proceedings R.P No.198 of 2015 issued in Original Application No.7 of 2010. The proceedings of R.P.No.198 of 2015 came to be initiated by the Canara Bank. The dues were sought to be recovered by Bank by seeking to attach the property- bungalow above described.

3.1 The petitioner Ramila Mahendrabhai Amin is a third party. She felt aggrieved since bungalow was attached and sought to be auctioned. The case is that her husband Mahendrabhai Amin died on 11.11.2014. It was stated that Mr.Snehalkumar Revabhai Patel (son-in-law) happens to be owner of the bungalow and that the petitioner and her deceased husband had been staying in the property.

3.2 The petitioner raised her objections dated 31.3.2023 under Rule 11 of the 2nd Schedule of Income Tax Act against order dated 8.2.2023 passed by the Recovery Officer-II in respect of the auction which was scheduled on 12.4.2023 to sale the aforesaid bungalow occupied by the petitioner.

3.3 Various factual and legal grounds were urged by the petitioner raising objections. The court is not concerned with the merits of the said grounds.

3.4 The auction was fixed on 12.4.2023. That date has passed by. It was stated that on that date no purchaser or bidder came forward, therefore auction could not be held. Since the date of auction has gone and fresh date has not been announced, the urgency is ceased as such.

C/SCA/6507/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023

4. What was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner was that petitioner's interim application raising objections to the auction was kept by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on the same date when the auction was scheduled, that is, 12.4.2023. It was kept undecided and has remained undecided till date.

4.1 In the above context of facts, raising grievance, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before the next auction is announced and takes place, the interim application raising objections filed by the petitioner as above, deserves to the decided so that the petitioner knows where she stands and the rights are crystallized. It was submitted that if limited direction to that extent is given to disposed of the petition, the petitioner would be satisfied.

5. The above request is reasonable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide the objection application dated 31.3.2023 in accordance with law within 15 days or within the next date of auction is announced, whichever is earlier.

6. It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the case and objections of the petitioner, nor has expressed any opinion on the merits of the present petition.

7. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(J. C. DOSHI,J) Manshi