This is a common judgment disposing two appeals against orders in a debt recovery proceeding. The DRAT held that since the underlying recovery proceedings were withdrawn by the certificate holder in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment, the appeals became infructuous and were disposed of accordingly.
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.
Reportable/Non-Reportable
Judgment reserved on 12th May, 2026 Judgment delivered on 20th May, 2026
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
Appeal No. 129 of 2014
(Arising out of T.A. 216 of 1994 in R.P. No. 142 of 2003 in DRT-I, Kolkata)
Orissa Minerals Development Company Limited, a Government of India Enterprise under the Ministry of Steel having its Head Office at Sourav Abasan (2nd Floor), AG 104, Sector II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 091.
… Appellant
-Versus-
... Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants
… Mr. Swarup Banerjee Mr. Hari Charan Yadav
Counsel for Respondent No. 1 … Mr. Shreyan Bhattacharya Mr. S.N. Patra Bhatta
Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 … Mr. Joy Saha, Senior Advocate Mr. Ajit Keshari Ms. Antara Biswas
With
Appeal No. 130 of 2014
(Arising out of T.A. 216 of 1994 in R.P. No. 142 of 2003 in DRT-I, Kolkata)
Orissa Minerals Development Company Limited, a Government of India Enterprise under the Ministry of Steel having its Head Office at Sourav Abasan (2nd Floor), AG 104, Sector II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 091.
… Appellant
-Versus-
2
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata
... Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants
… Mr. Swarup Banerjee Mr. Hari Charan Yadav
Counsel for Respondent No. 1 … Mr. Shreyan Bhattacharya Mr. S.N. Patra Bhatta
Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 … Mr. Joy Saha, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ajit Keshari Ms. Antara Biswas
JUDGMENT : 20th May, 2026
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:
1. Since both the appeals have arisen in the common T.A. 216 of 1994 and R.P. 142 of 2003, set of facts and issues involved are common, hence both the appeals are being decided simultaneously by a common judgment. 2. Heard Learned Counsel for Appellants, Mr. Swarup Banerjee, Mr. Shreyan Bhattacharya, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank and Mr. Joy Saha, Learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 2 and perused the record.
3
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata 3. Instant appeal has been preferred against order No. 48 dated 8.6.2010 passed by DRT-I, Kolkata in T.A. 216 of 1994.
4. At the very outset, for proper appreciation of the submission made by Learned Counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the reliefs sought for by the Appellants in the Appeal No. 129 of 2014:
“a) Leave be granted to the appellant OMDC to prefer the appeal before this Tribunal against the orders and proceeding impugned by way of intervention in the proceeding.
b) Order No.48 dated 08.06.2010 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata in connection with T.A. No. 216 of 1994 be set aside and quashed; c) Declaration that the continuance of Recovery proceedings in connection with T.A. No. 216 of 1994 being R.P. 142 of 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata and consequently all subsequent orders passed in respect of RP No. 142 of 2003 are void, non-est and not enforceable against the appellant and consequently all orders consequent thereto and RP. 142 of 2003 be quashed and set aside being premised on a void and unlawful agreement executed between UCO bank and TPG.
d) Declaration that Orders namely Order no. 48 of 08-06-2010; is void, non-est and not enforceable against the appellant. e) Declaration that the debt assignment agreement between UCO bank and TPG executed on 17.11.2009 in violation of relevant provisions of SARFAESI Act 2002 and being an instrument conceived through suppression of material facts and other fraudulent manoeuvres as detailed in the pleadings be declared as a void contract.
f) Declaration that M/s TPG be declared as persona non grata in any proceedings before Ld. DRT-1, Kolkata being a party in a
4
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata fraudulent debt assignment agreement which is void and bad in law.
g) An enquiry by a competent Govt. agency be ordered to probe into the activities/involvement of UCO bank by executing a fraudulent and unlawful agreement with a private company i.e. TPG and thereby, going against Central Government and Public Sector undertakings and PSUs.
h) Mandatory injunction commanding the TPG, the Receiver and the Committee of Management and Recovery Officer, DRT-I not to make any interference in respect of the said three mines, as their reckless action has already caused a revenue loss by way of lost production of Iron Ore and Manganese Ore in the said three mines to the tune of around Rs 5000 Crores.
i) Stay of Execution Case being No. TA/216/1994 pending before the Learned Recovery Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal- I, Kolkata;
j) Quashing of all proceedings before the Execution Case being No. TA/216/1994 pending before the Learned Recovery Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal- I, Kolkata.”
5. Instant Appeal No. 130 of 2014 is preferred against order dated 23.2.2012 passed by DRT-I, Kolkata in Appeal No. 2 of 2011 (Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Limited -vs- UCO Bank & 0thers). Appeal was filed against order dated 23.3.2011 passed by Recovery Officer in R.P. 142 of 2003 arising out of T.A. 216 of 1994. Learned Counsel DRT vide impugned order allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Recovery Officer dated 23.3.2011 to the extent that the attachment share in question is released and the Receiver appointed by the said order is discharged.
5
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata However, the Union of India may discharge its liability and decide in this matter by transferring its shares in favour of Respondent no. 2 or by any other way. Respondents No. 1 and 2 may proceed under the Recovery Proceedings to receive the dues in respect of other properties of Certificate Debtors No. 1 and 2 in accordance with law. Instant order of the Presiding Officer is passed in R.P. 142 of 2003 which is withdrawn by the Certificate Holder.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 prays for dismissal of the appeal being infructuous as they have withdrawn the Recovery Proceedings No. 142 of 2003 before the Recovery Officer on 25.11.2025 and the Learned Presiding Officer has withdrawn the Recovery Proceedings Case No. 142 of 2003 vide order dated 9.12.2025. Subsequently, Recovery Officer vide order dated 23.12.2025 closed the Recovery Proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal which arises out of an order dated 8.6.2010 arising out of the Recovery Proceedings No. 142 of 2003 has become infructuous. 7. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Civil No. 7315 of 2021 and 7316 of 2021 (Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha -vsBharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (In Liquidation) and 0thers) has held in paragraph 34 that the TPG Equity Management Private Limited, who is Respondent No. 2, is an Assignee in terms of the Assignment Agreement dated 17.11.2009 with the UCO Bank. Accordingly, the judgment dated 3.3.2020 passed by the Hon’ble High Court
6
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata at Calcutta was set aside and further directed that the proceedings will continue before the Company Court of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in accordance with law.
8. Learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 2 would further submit that the order under challenge is an interlocutory order dated 25th November, 2025 passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Kolkata in the Recovery Proceedings No. 142 of 2003 which was initiated at the behest of the UCO Bank wherein now TPG Equity Management Private Limited (in short ‘TPG’), is the Assignee who has withdrawn the Recovery Certificate in compliance of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred above. 9. It is further submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has taken care of all the issues and when the Recovery Proceedings has itself been withdrawn the appeal cannot proceed.
10. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Appellant opposed the prayer for dismissal of the appeal being infructuous. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Appellant has challenged all the orders passed in the Recovery Proceedings. Appellant has preferred a statutory appeal. Appellant was not a party to the Recovery Proceedings and he has not been served with the application for withdrawing the Recovery Certificate. Learned Counsel for Appellant also entered into the merits of the matter by submitting that the Assignment Agreement in favour of TPG is against the specific provisions of law. The appeal was
7
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata filed after obtaining leave of the Appellate Tribunal. Appeal cannot be dismissed as infructuous in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Jurisdiction of the Company Court cannot over-ride the jurisdiction of the DRT. A substantive appeal is filed by the Appellants. No finding is recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the proceedings pending before the DRT.
11. As referred to above, the instant appeal is preferred by the Appellants against the order dated 8.6.2010 in the R.P. 142 of 2003 which was an interlocutory order wherein the prayer of CHB for appointment of the Receiver in the Committee of Management was allowed. Further it was held that TPG is not a Certificate Holder. However, in the order dated 15.6.2020, Learned Presiding Officer of the DRT issued direction to the Recovery Officer to cause necessary amendment in the Certificate and include TPG as Certificate Holder No. 2 and to proceed further in accordance with law against the Certificate Debtor for recovery.
12. Order under challenge is dated 8.6.2010 only.
13. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that all the orders, i.e., order No. 44 dated 21.4.2010 passed by Recovery Officer, Order No. 48 dated 8.6.2010 passed by Recovery Officer and Order No. 50 dated 24.6.2010 passed by Recovery Officer and Order No. 16 dated 23.2.2012, passed by the Presiding Officer, are under challenge. He has placed reliance upon Seema Textiles & 0thers -vsPunjab & Sind Bank [(2005) 1 BC 1) . This is a judgment
8
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata of Coordinate Bench of DRAT, Delhi which has no binding effect over this Appellate Tribunal.
14. Reliance is also placed upon Garikapati Veeraya -vsN. Subhaiah Choudhry & 0thers) (AIR 1957 SC 540) wherein it was held that right to appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right. There cannot be two opinion that the right of appeal is substantial right but at the same time Appellant is required to challenge one impugned order in an appeal. But in the present case, Appellant has only challenged order dated 8.6.2010, as referred to above. Hence veracity and illegality of that order can only be looked into in the appeal. All other orders are not challenged in appeal; hence their legality cannot be looked into in this appeal.
15. Accordingly, the appeal can only be treated as an appeal against the against order No. 48 dated 8.6.2010 passed by DRT-I, Kolkata in T.A. 216 of 1994.
16. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 17th May, 2024 in SLP Civil No. 7315-7316 of 2021 (General Secretary, Government of Orissa Bharat Properties and Mechanical Engineers Limited (In Liquidation) & Others). The SLP was filed by TPG impugning the orders dated 9.3.2023 and 13.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, all the issues raised by the Appellant herein were before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hon’ble Apex Court has recorded that on 17.11.2009 UCO
9
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata Bank entered into Assignment Agreement with TPG for consideration of Rs.55.00 lac. Impleadment of TPG in place of UCO Bank was allowed by DRT vide an ex parte order dated 15.6.2010 in response to UCO Bank’s application. Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 34 held that:
“34. As recorded above, TGP is an assignee in terms of the assignment agreement dated 17.09.2009 with UCO Bank. They paid a consideration of Rs.55,00,000/-. TGP accepts that they had received payment of more than Rs. 2,99,12,461/-. However, this is not to state that TGP is not entitled to amounts as certified by the Official Liquidator in his letter of acceptance dated 18.08.2011 admitting their claim of Rs.48,18,87,859/as ordinary/preferential and Rs. 127,96,66,859/- as an unsecured preferential creditor. Payment to TGP, the assignee, who has acquired rights post the liquidation of BPMEL, will be paid as per law, in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956.”
Further, in paragraph 39 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
“39. The proceedings will continue before the Company Court of the High Court at Calcutta in accordance with the law. The workmen and TGP will be entitled to raise all pleas and contentions as are available in terms of the Companies Act, 1956 for payment and enforcement of their dues, as alleged, in accordance with law.”
17. TPG was impleaded as a Certificate Holder vide order dated 15.6.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT which order is not challenged. In view of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court the proceedings will continue before the Company Court of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in accordance with law, as noted above. Accordingly, the contentions raised by the Appellants regarding continuity of the appeal does not survive.
10
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata 18. No doubt, the jurisdiction of the DRT as well as Company Court are exclusive; but at the same time when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already decided the issue and except for Recovery Proceedings, no other matter is pending before the DRT which too is withdrawn by the Certificate Holder; nothing remains before the DRT for adjudication.
19. The issues raised about the right of appeal being substantial right, could not be disputed; but at the same time, all the orders, as claimed by the Appellants, could not be challenged in one appeal. Reliance is placed upon Rule 12 of the DRAT Procedure Rules, 1994. Rule 12 of the DRAT Procedure Rules reads as under:
“12. Plural remedies. - A memorandum of appeal shall not seek relief or reliefs based on more than a single cause of action in one single memorandum of appeal unless the reliefs prayed for are consequential to one another.”
20. Bare perusal of the Rules will show that in one Memorandum of Appeal different reliefs of more than one cause of action cannot be sought for. Although exception is curved out to the effect that if the reliefs prayed for are consequential in nature, the same can be claimed. Perusal of the order dated 8.6.2010, as quoted above, will show that the prayer of the Certificate Holder Bank for appointment of Receiver of the Committee of Management was allowed. Relevant part of the order reads as under:
“The prayer of the CHB for appointment of Receiver and the Committee of Management as above and the scheme proposed as above are allowed.”
11
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata
21. Subsequent orders are not consequential orders of the order dated 8.6.2010 as the order dated 15.6.2010 is an order passed by the Presiding Officer directing the Recovery Officer to cause necessary amendment in the Certificate and include TPG as Certificate Holder No. 2 and to proceed further in accordance with law. Thereafter, different orders were passed by the Presiding Officer but none of those orders can be said to be orders consequential to the order dated 8.6.2010. Hence the contention of the Learned Counsel for Appellant regarding applicability of Rule 12 of the DRAT Procedure Rules could not be accepted. Instant appeal can only be treated as an appeal against order dated 8.6.2010.
22. Certain submissions are also made by the Learned Counsel for Appellant regarding validity of the Assignment Agreement in favour of TPG. Although, at this stage, that is not to be looked into by this Appellate Tribunal. However, in view of the judgment of the passed by Hon’ble Apex Court on 17th May, 2024 in SLP Civil No. 7315 of 2021 and 7316 of 2021 SLP Civil No. 7315-7316 of 2021 (General Secretary, Government of Orissa Bharat Properties and Mechanical Engineers Limited (In Liquidation) & Others), this issue is not res integra. In paragraph 34 of the judgment wherein it was held that TPG is an Assignee in terms of the Assignment Agreement dated 17.9.2009 with UCO Bank.
23. Now the only issue to be looked into remains as to whether the instant appeal can be proceeded with or is liable to be disposed of being infructuous.
12
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata 24. As has been held in the earlier part of the judgment that the instant appeal is preferred against order No. 48 dated 8.6.2010 passed by DRT-I, Kolkata in T.A. 216 of 1994 passed in Recovery Proceedings No. 142 of 2003. Perusal of the order dated 8.6.2010 would reveal that it is an interlocutory order passed in the pending Recovery Proceedings. Recovery Proceedings is withdrawn by the Certificate Holder before the Recovery Officer. Recovery Officer, in its order dated 25.11.2025, records that TPG prayed for withdrawal of the Recovery Certificate in compliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.5.2024 in SLP Civil No. 7315-7316 of 2021 (General Secretary, Government of Orissa Bharat Properties and Mechanical Engineers Limited (In Liquidation) & Others). Accordingly, Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the matter to be placed before the Presiding Officer of the DRT. DRT-I, Kolkata vide order dated 9.12 2025 ordered the R.P. No. 142 of 2003 disposed of as withdrawn. Consequently, Recovery Officer, vide order dated 23.12.2025, closed the matter.
25. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Recovery Proceedings have been closed behind his back without providing him copy of the application for withdrawal of the Recovery Proceedings.
26. Per contra, Learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 2 would submit that the Appellants are not a party in the Recovery Proceedings; they have no locus in the Recovery
13
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata Proceedings. The Recovery Proceedings was withdrawn in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
27. As far as the issue of right of audience to the Appellant, either before the Recovery Officer or before the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Kolkata, is concerned, admittedly, Appellants are not a party in the Recovery Proceedings, hence, they have no right of audience before the Recovery Officer or the Presiding Officer. Further, the Certificate Holder has withdrawn the Recovery Proceedings in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court; hence, there was no requirement of serving copy of the application of withdrawal to the Appellants.
28. On the basis of the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that both the appeals filed against orders dated 8.6.2010 and order dated 23.2.2012 in pending R.P. No. 142 of 2003, arising out of T.A. 216 of 1994 and the proceedings of the R.P. Case No. 142 of 2003 has already been withdrawn by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Kolkata vide order dated 9.12.2025, accordingly, both the appeals become infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.
O R D E R
Both the appeals; Appeal No. 129 of 2014 and Appeal No. 130 of 2014, are disposed of as infructuous.
File be consigned to Record room.
Copy of the order be retained in the records of Appeal No. 130 of 2014.
14
Appeals No.129 and 130 of 2014-DRAT-Kolkata
Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.
Order signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 20th May, 2026 ac
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pending appeals against debt recovery proceedings remain maintainable after the primary recovery proceedings are withdrawn by the certificate holder pursuant to Supreme Court directions.
Whether the appellants were required to be served notice of the withdrawal application filed by the certificate holder.
Whether the appeal is disposed of as infructuous due to the closure of underlying recovery proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Seema Textiles & Others v. Punjab & Sind BankReferred¶13
Seema Textiles & 0thers -vs Punjab & Sind Bank [(2005) 1 BC 1)
Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbaiah ChoudhryReferred¶14
Garikapati Veeraya -vs N. Subhaiah Choudhry & 0thers) (AIR 1957 SC 540) · Who else cites this
General Secretary, Government of Orissa v. Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Ltd.Followed¶7,16,22
SLP Civil No. 7315-7316 of 2021 (General Secretary, Government of Orissa Bharat Properties and Mechanical Engineers Limited (In Liquidation) & Others)
Orissa Minerals Development Company Limited
UCO Bank
TPG Equity Management Private Limited
Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers Ltd.
Union of India
Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Limited
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
