The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed five miscellaneous appeals by a property purchaser challenging a bank's recovery proceedings. The Court held the purchaser was not bona fide due to pre-attachment purchase and dismissed the claim for investigation as time-barred.
All miscellaneous appeals and pending interim applications are dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 19th of July, 2022
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON
MA 5/2017
[Appeal No.8/2014 in 20/2014 in DRC No.140/2006 in OA 110/2005 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai]
MA 143/2017
[IA 371/2015 in OA 110/2005 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai]
MA 144/2017
[IA 372 /2015 in OA 110/2005 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai]
MA 145/2017
[IA 373/2015 in OA 110/2005 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai]
and
MA 235/2017
[AP No.11/2015 in MA 20/2014 in DRC No.140/2006 in OA 110/2005 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai]
Between
S. Selvi, W/o P.G. Sekar, No.16/01, 12th Main Road, Abirami Avenue, Kaviarasu Kannadhasan Nagar, Chennai -600 118.
……Appellant
1
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
And
….. Respondents Counsel for Appellant : M/s. Ahmad Associates Counsel for R1 Bank : Mr. T. Sundar Rajan Counsel for R6 : Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar
2
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
COMMON ORDER
Order as the main point involved is one and the same for all the Appeals, and it is among the same parties.
MA 235/2017 is preferred against Order dated 16.08.2016 in Appeal No. 11/2015 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai. Appeal No.11/2015 is preferred against Order
of Recovery Officer dated 04.08.2015 in MA 20/2014 in DRC No. 140/2006 in OA 110/2005.
3
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
MA-143/2017, MA 144/2017 & MA 145/2017 are preferred against a Common Order dated 11.08.2015 of DRT-II, Chennai passed in IA 371/2015, IA 372/2015 and IA 373/2015 in OA 110/2005. IA 371/2015 is filed
to reopen the proceedings in OA 110/2005; IA 372/2015 is filed to implead Petitioner therein, who is Appellant herein, as Respondent No.6 in OA 110/2005 and IA 373/2015 is filed to stay all further proceedings in DRC No.140/2006.
Appeal No.5/2017 for convenience sake.
4
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
First Respondent Bank filed OA 110/2005 against Respondent Nos. 2 and 5 for recovery of Rs.14,35,423/together with future interest contending that Respondent No.2 borrowed a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs from 1st Respondent Bank on 09.09.2002 and executed necessary documents for which Respondent No.5 stood as guarantor and executed guarantee agreement deed dated 19.09.2002, who also deposited title deeds of property land measuring 2466 sq. ft. together with building at door No.29, Plot No.29, 12th Street, Abirami Avenue, Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118 comprising Survey No.75/2A of Kodungaiyur Village with Respondent No.1 Bank with an intention to create equitable mortgage over said property as a security for loan amount. DRT allowed OA and issued Recovery Certificate for Rs.14,35,423/- with future interest at the rate of 14.86% p.a. with monthly rests from 01.08.2005
5
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
till the date of realization and issued Recovery Certificate dated 02.08.2006. Recovery Officer, in pursuance of Recovery Certificate, attached mortgaged property on 07.11.2013. Recovery Officer issued Sale Notice and affixed Sale Notice on the mortgaged property and Appellant herein filed MA 19/2014 seeking postponement of proposed auction sale and filed MA 20/ 2014 requesting Recovery Officer to investigate Appellant’s claim and objection taken in accordance with Rule 11 of II Schedule to Income Tax
Act, 1961. Before filing these two Applications, Appellant filed three Applications in OA 110/2005 under SR Nos. 91, 92 & 93 and those Applications were returned raising certain objections on maintainability and on return of those Applications, Appellant filed MA 19/2014 and MA 20/2014 before Recovery Officer and after dismissal of MA 19/2014, during pendency of
6
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
Appeal No.8/2014, these three Applications are again pursued, which are registered as IA 371/2015, IA 372/2015 and IA 373/2015. As Tribunal below dismissed Appeal No.8/2014, Appellant preferred Miscellaneous Appeal MA 5/2017 (AIR 461/2015) before this Tribunal. After filing of this Appeal, Recovery Officer dismissed MA 20/2014 on 04.08.2015 and Appellant challenged that Order by filing Appeal No. 11/2015 before DRT-II, Chennai. After dismissal of that Appeal and after dismissal of IA 371/2015, IA 372/2015 and IA 373/2015, subsequent Appeals are filed by Appellant.
7
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
for Appellant and Respondent No.6 reiterated Written Submissions at the time of oral arguments.
8
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
purchased this property through registered sale deed dated 29.12.2006 for a sale consideration of Rs.9.50 Lakhs. It is submitted that Respondent No.5 declared that property free from encumbrance and delivered title deeds to Appellant. He submitted that in view of registered Sale Deed, Appellant has right and interest in the property sold in auction and Recovery Officer is duty bound to investigate as to the claim of Appellant, but to the surprise of Appellant, Recovery Officer rejected the claim of Appellant on 04.08.2015 without examining the objection. It is further submitted that attachment is almost seven years after issuance of DRC, therefore, Recovery Officer is not right in refusing postponement of auction and also rejecting the claim of Appellant. It is submitted that the impugned Orders of DRT-II Chennai, in dismissing Appeal No.8/2014,
9
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
Appeal No. 11/2015, IA 371/2015, IA 372/2015 and IA 373/2015 in OA 110/2005 are liable to be set aside.
as per Rule 51 of II Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961, attachment relate back to Demand Notice, which was on 12.09.2006 in this case, much prior to purchase of property by Appellant herein. He submitted that it is well settled law that mortgage can be created even by producing copies of documents and what is important is intention to create mortgage, which is clearly established in this case. He submitted that Appellant purchased the mortgaged property, and her rights, if any, shall be subject to mortgage, therefore, the claim of Appellant is not tenable and Tribunal below rightly dismissed the Appeals and Applications.
10
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
in Appeal No.8/2014. As already referred to above, Appeal No.8/2014 on the file DRT-II, Chennai is
11
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
preferred questioning the orders of Recovery Officer passed in MA 19/2014 and MA 20/2014. For both these two MAs, Affidavit of Appellant is common, and only change is in prayer portion. In first Application MA 19/2014 prayer is for postponement of proposed sale and for MA 20/2014 prayer is to receive objection and investigate into the claim of Appellant.
12
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
Respondent No.5 and officials of Respondent No.1 Bank colluded together and cheated Appellant by dishonestly inducing her to part with Rs.9.50 Lakhs. She has asserted that, without the complicity of the officials of Respondent No.1 Bank, Respondent No.5 could not have submitted the original title deeds to her at the time of registration on 29.12.2006. So, it is specific case of Appellant that the original title deeds given to 1st Respondent Bank have been released due to collusion between Respondent No.5 and officials of Respondent No.1 Bank in order to cheat her. When such is the specific assertion of Appellant, her immediate action should have been to proceed against Respondent No.5 and the officials of Respondent No.1 Bank, both under criminal law and civil law. Admittedly, till now, no such action is initiated in those lines. Very Application MA 19/2014 is filed seeking postponement of proposed
13
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
sale. So, by the date of filing of that Application, Appellant is aware that she was cheated or induced to purchase the property. If really Appellant is interested in safeguarding the property, she ought to have redeemed the mortgage to avoid its sale, thereafter, ought to have sued Respondent No.5 for redeemed portion of money. If Appellant is not interested in retaining the property, she ought to have immediately proceeded against Respondent No.5 for recovery of sale consideration together with interest and damages. Appellant has not opted for these two actions, on the other hand, sought for postponement of sale and investigation into her claim.
14
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
Certificate is issued and registered. In fact, Appeal No. 8/2014 is filed after sale is completed. So, by the time of filing Appeal No. 8/2014, the relief of postponement of proposed sale has become infructuous . However, in Appeal No.8/2014, Appellant prayed for modification of impugned Common Order dated 01.04.2014 and for setting aside E- auction dated 03.04.2014, but in so far as second relief i.e. to set aside E-auction dated 03.04.2014, Appellant cannot claim that relief in the Appeal, because remedy is provided under Rule 60 of II Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961 to challenge the sale before Recovery Officer, therefore, without availing that remedy, it is not open for Appellant to make such request. With regard to first relief, as already referred to above, since sale has already taken place, there is no question of postponement, and thereby that relief has become infructuous .
15
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
16
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
which date Appellant was not the owner of property even according to her own case. So, as on that date, Appellant has no interest in the property because according to her own case, she purchased the property on 29.12.2006 i.e. almost three months after date of
service of notice. According to Rule 51 of II Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961, attachment relate back to date of service of notice. So, as rightly pointed out by Advocate for Respondent No.1 Bank, the attachment over disputed property relate back to September, 2006, which means, by the date of purchase, the property was under attachment. Further, Respondent No.5 mortgaged this property for loan availed by Respondent No.2 in September, 2002, which means, Appellant purchased the property in question four years after mortgage. Further, a Decree is passed against this property more than one year prior to purchase. So, for
17
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
all these reasons, Appellant cannot be treated as bona fide purchaser.
DRT-II, Chennai passed in Appeal No.11/2015. According to Advocate for Appellant, Recovery Officer has not examined the claim of Appellant and the Order of Recovery Officer dated 04.08.2015 is an ex parte order. As already referred to above, Appeal No.11/2015 is against Order of Recovery Officer dated 04.08.2015. I have perused the Order of Recovery Officer dated 04.08.2015. From a perusal of this Order, on 20.07.2015, Recovery Officer passed an order directing the Advocates of both parties to present on 28.07.2015 for disposal of MA 20/2014, but, it appears on 28.07.2015, Advocate for Petitioner in MA 20/2014, i.e. Appellant herein was not present, and as opposite
18
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
Advocate sought time, it was posted to 04.08.2015. Even on 04.08.2015, neither Appellant nor her Advocate were present, therefore, Recovery Officer on the basis of material, passed an Order that MA 20/2014 is without any merits, and dismissed the same by relying on Order of DRT dated 26.02.2015 in Appeal No.8/2014. So, this Order cannot be called as an ex parte Order simply because, Appellant or Advocate for Appellant was not present on that date. Rule 11 of II Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961 provides a right to raise objection or making a claim over possessed property and Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 11 authorizes Recovery Officer to disallow the claim, if he satisfies that on the date of attachment, if the property is in possession of defaulter. Here, as already referred to above, notice was issued to Respondent No.5 in September, 2006, which is duly served, on which date he was the owner and in
19
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
possession of property, therefore, under Sub-rule 5 of Rule 11 of II Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961, Recovery Officer has every right to disallow the claim. A combined reading of this provision with Order dated 04.08.2015, there cannot be any doubt that Recovery Officer has rightly exercised his power, which order is confirmed by Tribunal below in Appeal No.11 /2015. Further, in Sub-rule 6 of Rule 11 of II Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961, a right is provided to objector to institute a suit to establish the right which he/she claims to the property in dispute, and if such suit is filed, order of Recovery Officer shall be subject to result of such suit. Here, from the submissions of both sides, it appears that Appellant also filed a civil suit in OS No. 5819/2015 and the same is still pending. So, on a overall consideration of facts of the case, and for the reasons stated supra , I am of the considered view that,
20
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
Tribunal below rightly dismissed Appeal Nos.8/2014 and Appeal No. 11 /2015, and so also, IA 371/2015, IA 372/2015 & IA 373/2015 in OA 110/2005, and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with those Orders.
21
MA 5/2017, MA 143/2017, MA 144/2017, MA 145/2017 and MA 235/2017
relevance. Further, when Appellant purchased a
mortgaged and attached property, which is already referred to above, investigation by CBI or result of investigation, has absolutely no bearing on the issue. Therefore, these Applications are also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, IA 1003/2018, IA 497/2017 and IA 933/2019 are dismissed.
[Dictated to Athistamani, PS transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 19th of July, 2022]
[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar] CHAIRPERSON
22
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appellant purchasing mortgaged property after attachment and decree is a bona fide purchaser entitled to investigation.
Whether the delay in filing an application for investigation makes the claim unnecessary or designedly delayed.
Whether the certificate of sale rendered an application for postponement infructuous.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Selvi
Indian Bank
Mr. Shankar
Mrs. S. Susila
Ms. Haripriya
Mr. R. Seethapathy
S. Ravi Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
