Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Neha Organic Herbs vs Bank Of India on 6 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4932 of 2021
M/s. Neha Organic Herbs, a partnership firm, having its registered office at
village- Lepsar, P.O. Jonha, P.S. Angara, District- Ranchi through its member
namely Smt. Alomani Devi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bank of India, through the Authorized Officer, Zonal Office, Ranchi Zone,
Ranchi
2. Bank of India, Church Road Branch, Ranchi through its Branch Manager
.... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate
-----
Order No. 02 Dated: 06.12.2021
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing notice dated
07.09.2021 issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jharkhand,
Ranchi which, according to the petitioner, has been served to it on 25.11.2021
informing that its equitable mortgage of property appertaining to Khata No. 112,
Plot Nos. 1374, 1375, 1376 and 1377 situated at village Lepsar, P.S. Angara,
Thana No. 83, District- Ranchi measuring an area of 4.52 acres, in the name of
Alomani Devi (certificate debtor no. 2) wife of Sanichar Mahli (certificate debtor
no. 3) has been put to e-auction sale. Further prayer has been made for
issuance of direction upon the respondents to arrive at a compromise in terms
with 'One Time Settlement' (OTS) scheme which was earlier agreed by the then
Branch Manager, Bank of India, Church Road Branch, Ranchi for an amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- as was assured on 07.09.2019.
2. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner has not brought on record a chit of paper in support of its contention
that any 'one time settlement' was arrived at for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to
be paid by the petitioner towards the concerned loan account.
3. Learned senior counsel for the respondents has produced before this Court
a copy of order dated 05.11.2013 passed in O.A. No. 82 of 2011. The same is
kept on record.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ
petition. It appears that on 04.05.2011, the respondent-Bank had filed O.A. No.
82 of 2011 against the petitioner and others for recovery of Rs.39,15,829.50/-
along with interest and cost. The said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated
05.11.2013 by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ranchi by
passing following ex-parte order:
"In the result, the Original Application succeeds ex-parte against
all the Defendants with costs.
It is therefore ordered:-
(i) That the Original Application No. 82 of 2011 initiated by the
Applicant Bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of
Rs.39,15,829.50/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Fifteen Thousand
Eight Hundred Twenty Nine and Paise Fifty Only) together with
interest and costs hereby succeeds and is allowed ex-parte against
the Defendants no. 1 to 4 jointly and severally with costs. The
Defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of two
months from the date of judgment, failing which the Applicant
Bank will be entitled to recover the dues by sale of mortgage
property and other personal movable/immovable properties of all
Defendants. The Applicant Bank is further entitled to pendentelite
and future interest on the amount due @ 10.00 % with monthly
rests from 01.04.2011 till full recovery is made from the
Defendants.
(ii) Let a Recovery Certificate be issued immediately under Section
19(22) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution
Act, 1993 together with the details of the properties (as detailed in
its Original Application) by fixing 06.01.2014 before R.O., DRT,
Ranchi.
(iii) The Defendants No. 1 to 4 are hereby restrained by means of
injunctions from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating
or in any way dealing with their properties/estates without first
paying the claim of the Applicant Bank."
5. On further perusal of the said order, it appears that the learned Presiding
Officer, DRT, Ranchi in paragraph-7 of the same has mentioned that the
defendants of the said case were summoned through registered post with A/D as
well as notices were also published in newspaper, however none of the
defendants appeared before the Tribunal for filing their written statement and
after getting satisfied that the notices were deemed to have been served to the
defendants, the Tribunal decided to proceed against the said defendants ex-
parte to consider the Bank's claim.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid observation of the learned Presiding Officer,
DRT, Ranchi made in the order dated 05.11.2013 passed in O.A. No. 82 of 2011,
the claim of the petitioner made in the present writ petition that it had no
knowledge about the institution of O.A. No. 82 of 2011 as well as the Recovery
Proceeding No. 117 of 2013, cannot be appreciated by this Court.
7. Further claim of the petitioner is that it has already deposited
Rs. 43,27,845.50/- towards the term loan and cash credit facility provided to it
by the respondent-Bank, however the said payment has neither been considered
by the Bank nor by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Ranchi while issuing impugned
sale proclamation in Recovery Proceeding No. 117 of 2013. So far as the said
grievance of the petitioner is concerned, this Court is not inclined to entertain
the said factual aspect raised in the present writ petition particularly keeping in
view that O.A. No. 82 of 2011 filed by the respondent-Bank before the DRT,
Ranchi was decided way back on 05.11.2013 itself. If the petitioner has any
grievance with regard to appropriation of payment made by it towards the
concerned term loan as well as cash credit account, it is at liberty to prefer an
appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993
challenging the sale proclamation dated 07.09.2021 issued by the Recovery
Officer, DRT, Ranchi.
8. The writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid liberty.
Ritesh/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)
