[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Shriram Plast vs Recovery Officer on 22 January, 2026
1 MP-304-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 304 of 2026
M/S SHRIRAM PLAST AND OTHERS
Versus
RECOVERY OFFICER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the
Recovery Officer Annexure P/6 dated 25.11.2025 whereby the Recovery
Officer has directed taking over physical possession of the three properties
by the Court receiver, which is pursuant to the earlier order passed by the
Recovery Officer dated 05-05-2025 whereby it has been decided that since
the property No.1 could not be successfully auctioned due to want of
bidders, hence it is prudent to put on sale all 3 properties mortgaged together.
2. Pursuant to order Annexure P/6 dated 25.11.2025, the Court
Receiver has issued notice to the petitioners to handover possession of the
mortgaged properties including residential house, by 27.01.2026 failing
which forcible possession shall be taken on 28.01.2026.
3. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of the present
petition are that the petitioners had a ex-parte judgment against them dated
21/08/2023 whereby an order has been passed by the Debts Recovery
2 MP-304-2026
Tribunal against the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 12.66 crores along
with pendente lite and future interest from 22-08-2020 till its realization, to
M.P. Financial Corporation.
4. It is evident from the record that three mortgaged properties of
the petitioners are available which includes one industrial plot in which the
unit in question had been established under the finance extended by the M.P.
Financial Corporation, another is Commercial diverted land in District
Jabalpur and third is a residential house in which petitioners are stated to be
residing and the said house is owned by the petitioner No. 2 who is one of the
judgment debtors of the judgment dated 21.08.2023 passed by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal Jabalpur in O.A. No. 870/2020.
5. It further appears from the documents placed on record that earlier
in the year 2025 there was a settlement between M.P. Financial Corporation
and the petitioners and the loan amount was settled by the Corporation for an
amount of Rs. 6.50 crores out of which the petitioners deposited Rs. 67.00
lacs but failed to deposit the entire amount which was to be deposited upto
October-2025 and therefore, the settlement proposal failed.
6. The counsel for the petitioner at the outset stated that now the
petitioners have searched prospective buyers for the property which is
industrial plot and they should be granted liberty to approach the M.P.
Financial Corporation with fresh settlement proposal and till then no
coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners for physically taking
over possession of the properties, specially the residential house.
7. The recovery officer has directed to take possession of all the 3
3 MP-304-2026
properties mortgaged with the corporation to ensure auction of the properties
for realization of the amount.
8. Considering the assertions of learned counsel for the petitioners
that now they have a prospective purchaser for the industrial plot and they
would like to file a fresh proposal for settlement of the loan, it is directed that
the petitioners shall submit a fresh proposal before the MP Financial
Corporation within 7 days from today and upon submitting proof of
submission of the proposal before the recovery officer within seven days
from today, the recovery officer shall not take further coercive steps for
physical possession and sale of the residential house till the said proposal is
decided by the Corporation/MPFC. It is made clear that upon the proposal
being turned down by the Corporation, the recovery officer shall be at liberty
to recover the loan amount as per judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal
by adopting all such means as are available under the law to the Recovery
Officer as against the residential property also.
9. With the aforesaid direction, petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
