The High Court dismissed the writ application as the recovery proceeding is pending before the Recovery Officer. The petitioner is granted liberty to participate in that proceeding to satisfy the certificate.
Writ application disposed of with liberty to petitioner to participate in recovery proceeding.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3228 of 2018
======================================================
Ridhi Nath Jha, Chairman Cum Managing Director S/o Sri Trilok Nath, Dev Kripa Realcon Limited, Kathal Bari, Darbhanga Pin- 846004. Resident of 88, Darwar Lavani Benipur, Lavani, Darbhanga, Bihar- 847201.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bishwajeet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sanjay Singh Thakur, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
4 05-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the Bank.
Pursuant to the last order dated 04.12.2018 learned counsel for the Bank has placed before this Court a statement of Accounts. Copy of the same has been made available to learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the given facts of this case where admittedly the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal) has passed a certificate of recovery in terms of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and for satisfaction of that certificate a recovery proceeding is going on before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3228 of 2018(4) dt.05-08-2019 2/2
Recovery officer of the Tribunal, in the opinion of this court, there is no reason to entertain this writ application and no interference is called for by exercising its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the certificate of recovery the petitioner has been making payments towards satisfaction of the certificate and something around Rs. 35 lakhs is said to have been paid so far. Again, this Court would not be going into any such issue in a matter of calculation when evidently the certificate is pending before the Recovery Officer and the petitioner who is said to be the certificate debtor has got all opportunity to satisfy the Recovery Officer with the payments made and that the certificate is satisfied.
The writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the recovery proceeding and take all such steps which are required before the Recovery Officer.
The writ application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
avin/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should entertain the application where a recovery proceeding is pending before the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Whether the certificate of recovery under Section 19 RDBFI Act, 1993 requires interference by the High Court in writ jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ridhi Nath Jha
Indian Overseas Bank
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
