Disposed

Bank of India v. Ms Rajevee Enterprises and Others

DRT25 Jun 2025MA/14/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the single Miscellaneous Application maintaining it was not maintainable against the Recovery Officer's order. However, the matter was transferred to Recovery Officer-II due to apprehension of bias raised in the case of Vikram Panwar vs State Bank of India.

What did the court decide?

The recovery case TRC No.2029/2018 was transferred to Recovery Officer-II, DRT-II, Bangalore.

Bank of India versus Ms Rajevee Enterprises and Others — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated 25^th day of June, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

MA No. 14 of 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/s. Rajvee Enterprises A Proprietary concern Presently at No.68, Ram Gita Mandir Street, 2^nd Cross, P.G. Road, J.C. Nagar, Bangalore – 560006

¶8

Sri. S. Rajamani Aged about 65 years S/o. K. Ksheeravaneswaran, Ram Gita Mandir Street, 2^nd Cross, P.G. Road, J.C. Nagar, Bangalore – 560006

¶9

…APPLICANTS

¶10

AND:

¶11

Bank of India J.C. Road Branch, Bengaluru-560002 Rep. by its Authorized signatory

¶12

The Asset Recovery Branch Rep. by Authorised officer, 1^st floor, Bank of India Zonal office, 11, K.G. Road, Bangalore-560009

¶13

Sri. S. Hariharan S/o. K. Ksheeravaneswaran, Major in age No.46/c, Old No.39/c, Anu Apartments South Boag Road, T Nagar, Chennai – 600017

¶14

2 MA/14/2025

¶15

Smt. Saradha Rajamani Aged aobut 58 years W/o. Rajamani S Ram Gita Mandir Street, 2^nd Cross, P.G. Road, J.C. Nagar, Bangalore – 560006

¶16

Mrs. Najmunnisa Major in age W/o. Abdul Razak No. J-14, 7^th Cross, Kuber Singh Lane, Doddamavalli, Bengaluru-560004

¶17

M/s. Hariharan & Co A proprietary concern, Office at No.151, Pycrofts Road, Chennai – 600014

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

Counsels on record/appeared for:

¶20

Applicants : Sri. Sam George Respondent : Sri. T.S. Mahabaleshwara

¶21

Ld. Counsels on record appeared:

¶22

For Applicants : Party in Person For Respondent No.1 : M. Mohamed Ibrahim For Respondent No.2 to 6 : -----…….

¶23

:ORDER:

¶24

This MA is filed to certify that with a prayer to transfer the TRC.No.2029/2018 pending before the Recovery Officer-I to appropriate Recovery Officer DRT-I, Bengaluru.

¶25

It is contended by the petitioner that, the schedule property does not come within the territorial jurisdiction of DRT-II

¶26

3 MA/14/2025

¶27

and hence the matter needs to be transferred to the Recover Officer of other DRT. When the matter was taken up for hearing the party in person who is appearing for the petitioner submits that, his main apprehension is that the Recovery Officer who is now dealing with the matter was an officer of the 1^st respondent bank.

¶28

After hearing the party in person for the applicant and the Ld. counsel for the respondent, this Tribunal is of the view that, the present application is not maintainable as there is no provision for filing an Miscellaneous Application before the Presiding Officer against the proceedings of the Recovery Officer and only the jurisdiction for this Tribunal to interfere in any Order of the Recovery Officer is under S.30 of the RDB Act. If, at all the petitioner is having a grievance as to the jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer the same has to be raised by filing a appropriate application and if an adverse order is passed, the same has to be appeal against as provided under S.30 of the Act. There is no enabling provisions for the Presiding Officer to interfere with the judicial work of the Recovery Officer and only power is under the Appellate Jurisdiction as confined under S.30 of the Act.

¶29

However taking note of the apprehension of the

¶30

applicant that the Recovery Officer is from Certified Holder Bank, this Tribunal by exercising the administrative jurisdiction and taking

¶31

4 MA/14/2025

¶32

note of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Vikram Panwar & Anr vs State Bank of India, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court directs as follows:

¶33

“7. We, therefore, dispose of the petition by requesting the Presiding Officers of all the Benches of the DRT to ensure that in future whenever a R.O. is appointed, every possible effort should be made to ensure that the R.O., who is an employee of the said bank is not associated with the this is a digitall y signed order.”

¶34

This Tribunal feels that the TRC No.2029/2018 is to be transferred to the Recovery Officer-II of this DRT. This Order is passed taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and this Tribunal does not endorse the apprehension of the applicant as to the alleged prejudice of the Recovery Officer No.1.

¶35

Hence, this MA is disposed directing, TRC.No.2029/2018 to be transferred to Recovery Officer – II, DRT-II.

¶36

(Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), after her transcription and necessary corrections, signed and Order passed on this 25^th day of June 2025)

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

DRT-II, BENGALURU

Bank of India v. Ms Rajevee Enterprises and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Ms Rajevee Enterprises 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shagun Sheikh versus State Bank of India

Ms We Build P Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Abdul Lahil Baki versus Central Bank of India

Ms Vijay Kumar Bansal and Co. versus Hdfc Bank

Milind S/O Keshaorao Pande versus Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd. through Its Authorized Officer

Ms R S v Cotton Industries versus Bank of Baroda