The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an appeal by State Bank of India against an order allowing third-party objections to property possession. The court held that the order issuing from the Recovery Officer should stand and other pending applications were disposed of.
Appeal dismissed; all pending IAs disposed off.
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.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Item No. 117
Case No. APPEAL/8/2023 IN OA/1344/2019 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs HEER SINGH
Date: 16.05.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode
Present:
Shri Kirti Kapoor & Shri Jabhar Swami, Counsel for the Applicant Shri Kailash Tailor, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, this Appeal is filed against the order passed by the Recovery Officer allowing the objections made by the third party objector, being the owner of the flat in question.
The main contention counsel for the appellant is that this Appeal is maintainable and if there is any grievance of respondent then, they should have gone under Section 26 RDB Act for modification of recovery certificate. Section 11 of Income tax schedule gives power to the Recovery Officer to entertain objections of third party to adjudicate the rights to objections after making thorough investigation.
Very interestingly, State Bank of India is claiming charge over this property which is not even registered in CERSAI and no mortgage was created.
On the other hand, the defendant herein is also a borrower of State Bank of India only. Which has made a proper investigation before granting loan and also service registration has been done. Recovery Officer cannot go beyond the recovery certificate when the certified debtors are before him objecting to the amount or any averment in respect of the property mentioned therein, but under Rule 11, it is the duty of the Recovery Officer to investigate and pass appropriate order.
cm
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
It is admitted that the property is not mortgaged with the appellant herein and no charge is registered with CERSAI.
In view of the above submissions and contentions, this Appeal stands dismissed.
Accordingly, Appeal stands disposed off, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any.
File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
cm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appeal filed by the Bank is maintainable against the order allowing third-party objections.
Whether the Recovery Officer acted correctly in investigating third-party claims over property despite lack of registered charge.
Whether the Appellant could have sought modification of the recovery certificate under Section 26 of the RDB Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State Bank of India
Heer Singh
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
