Allowed

Devkaran S/O Ashokkumar Navik v. Honble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Thr. Its Presiding Officer, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC4 May 2023WP/2919/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that since certified copies are available, no useful purpose is served by retaining original documents. The order rejecting the debtr recovery tribunal request was set aside, directing the tribunal to return originals to the bank for handover to the auction purchaser.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 21-9-2022 set aside to the extent it directed return of certified copies. Original documents to be returned to the bank for handover to the auction purchaser.

1.Considering the short issue involved, service of notice on the respondent Nos.3 to 5 is dispensed with. The respondent No.1 is represented by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India. Shri Manogga Singh, learned counsel, waives service of notice for the respondent No.2- Bank.

2.The petitioner is an auction purchaser of the property mortgaged by the respondent Nos.3 to 5, while availing the credit facility from the respondent No.2- Bank. The Bank initiated the proceedings in the form of Original Application No.392 of 2018 for recovery of its dues. Pursuant to the auction held, the petitioner successfully purchased the mortgaged property and the sale certificate has also been issued in his favour on 24-7-2020. The petitioner sought return of the original documents that were filed in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Bank did not oppose the said request. The Bank moved an application seeking return of the original documents with a view to supply the same to the auction purchaser. The said application has, however, been rejected by the Tribunal on 21-9-2022 by observing that the certified copies of the documents that were filed on 15-9-2022 by the Bank should be returned. In this backdrop, the auction purchaser has challenged the order dated 21-9-2022.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.2. Reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited Vs. State Bank of India and others, reported in

AIR Online 2020 SC 580, to support the prayer for return of original documents. We find that the petitioner being the auction purchaser and the certified copies of the documents being available on record, no useful purpose would be served by retaining the original documents with the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The same can be directed to be handed over to the Bank to enable it to return the same to the auction purchaser with the condition that the original documents shall be produced as and when required by the Tribunal.

4.Accordingly, the order dated 21-9-2022 is set aside to the extent it directs return of the certified copies of the original documents filed by the Bank. Instead the original documents filed by the Bank on 15-9-2022 shall be returned to it. The certified copies of such documents shall be retained on the record of the proceedings, being Original Application No.392 of 2018. The Bank is free to give those documents to the petitioner- auction purchaser. The petitioner shall accept the said documents on the condition that the same shall be produced as and when required by the Tribunal.

Devkaran S/O Ashokkumar Navik v. Honble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Thr. Its Presiding Officer, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devkaran S/O Ashokkumar Navik v. Honble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Thr. Its Presiding Officer, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gorgeous Apparels, Delhi Thr. Proprietor, Vijay Mohan Vs Union of India Ministry of Finance Thr. Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Vinod Narayan Thengare Vs State of Maha., Thr. the District Collector, State Excise Department, Chandrapur and Another

Ravikant Baburao Upganlawar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the District Collector, State Excise Dept., Chandrapur and Anr.

Sambha Soma Kulsange and Others Vs State of Maha., Presented Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Road Project Division and Ors.

Vitthal Latari Satpute and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Presented Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Yavatmal and Others

Mahadeo Deorao Chahankar and Others Vs State of Maha., Presented Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, Road Project Division, Yavatmal and Ors.