Dismissed

Ms Mangalagiri Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. the Recovery Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad Drt 1 Hyderabad

DRAT6 Feb 2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal against an order finding it not maintainable. The Bench held that the G分段 issue involved the merit of the adjudication, not a clerical error, and the Recovery Certificate issued under the O.A. judgment was not an appealable order under Section 30 of the RDB Act, 1993.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed in limine at the Admission stage.

Ms Mangalagiri Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. versus the… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Diary No. 86 of 2024

¶3

(Arising out of Recovery Appeal 795 of 2023 in O.A. 43 of 2018 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

CHAIRPERSON

¶6

06.02.2024	M/s. Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited … Appellant -Vs- The Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Hyderabad & Another … Respondents
	Mr. Lakshminarayan Thirumal settee with Md. Dilawar Khan and Mr. Kamran Hussain, Learned Counsel for Appellant

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

For Admission

¶9

Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant and perused the record.

¶10

This appeal is against order dated 3^rd January, 2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the Appellant before the DRT-I, Hyderabad, in the matter arising out of O.A. 43 of 2018 in R.P. 240 of 2020, I.R. No. 795 of 2023, was dismissed being not maintainable.

¶11

Feeling aggrieved, Appellant preferred the instant appeal.

¶12

Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the instant appeal has been filed under Section 26 (2) read with Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned Counsel submits that some payments were made by the Appellant

¶13

¶14

which were not considered by the Learned DRT while deciding the O.A., hence the appeal is covered under 26 (2) of the Act.

¶15

Further it is submitted that the Demand Notice was issued by the Recovery Officer which was to be treated as an order against which appeal will be maintainable under Section 30 of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 19 (25) of the Act give inherent power to the DRT to pass orders in the interest of justice.

¶16

As per the record, O.A. 43 of 2018 was filed by the State Bank of India before the DRT-I, Hyderabad which was decided on 19.8.2019 and a Certificate for Rs.8,85,90,695.67 was issued. Subsequent thereto, Recovery Proceedings were initiated and Recovery Certificate was issued by the Recovery Officer.

¶17

Section 26 (1) of the Act provides that Recovery Officer has no jurisdiction to go beyond the certificate and it could not dispute the correctness of the amount specified in the certificate and no objection to the certificate on any other ground shall be entertained by the Recovery Officer. Sub Section 2 of Section 26 provides powers of the Presiding Officer to withdraw the certificate or correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the certificate. As far as the powers under Section 26 (2) of the Act are concerned, there could not be any ground to the issue of correcting any clerical or arithmetical mistake which was not raised before the Learned DRT rather, an issue was raised regarding payment

¶18

¶19

of some amount regarding O.A. which deals with the merit of the matter and was held rightly to be just and proper by the DRT.

¶20

As far as the maintainability of the appeal before the Learned DRT is concerned, it has specifically been held that non consideration of the amount deposited by the Appellant, pending O.A., is neither an error which is clerical or arithmetical. Further, Recovery Certificate was issued in compliance of the judgment of the O.A. hence, it cannot be treated as order of the Recovery Officer against which appeal under Section 30 of the Act can be maintainable.

¶21

Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad.

¶22

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine at the Admission stage.

¶23

Since appeal is dismissed at admission stage in limine, issue of waiver from making pre-deposit to maintain the appeal is not considered.

¶24

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondent and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶25

File be consigned to Record room.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶27

Dated: 06^th February, 2024 04/ac

Ms Mangalagiri Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. the Recovery Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad Drt 1 Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Mangalagiri Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. the Recovery Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad Drt 1 Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Rani Roy versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Pinku Banerjee versus United Bank of India Now Punjab National Bank

Orissa Gramya Bank versus Mrs Nibedita Pati And Another

Jagannath Mahapraphu LLP versus Ms Jain Steel and Power Ltd.and Ors.

Suvarna Electronics P Ltd. versus Andhra Bank

A.P. State Financial Corporation Ltd. versus Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. Arcil