Subhash Kumar V. Union Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Ramgarh Cantonment Branch, Ramgarh and The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi

WPC/1584/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Subhash Kumar, the petitioner, who participated in an e-auction conducted by the Union Bank of India for the recovery of outstanding dues of a certificate debtor. The auction was held on 03.03.2017, and the petitioner was the successful bidder for the Schedule-'B' properties. However, upon physical measurement, the properties were found to be smaller than advertised, and lacked essential access rights, raising concerns that the land was actually tribal land. The petitioner raised objections to the bank and the Recovery Officer, fearing the forfeiture of his deposit and the re-auctioning of the properties. The court did not decide on the merits of the case but allowed the petitioner to approach the Recovery Officer with a formal application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801763 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PARTH PATI
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN PASARI; ANKIT VIJAY
• Keywords: Debt Recovery; E-auction; Immovable properties; Tribal land; Certificate debtor
• Section: 52; 62; 58

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1584 of 2017 --- Subhash Kumar --- ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Ramgarh Cantonment Branch, Ramgarh 2. The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi --- Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: M/s Nitin Kr. Pasari, Ankit Vijay, Advocates For the Resp – Bank: Mr. Parth S.A.Swaroop Pati, Advocate --- 03/ 24.03.2017 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Respondent Bank. 2. Petitioner claims to be the successful bidder in e-auction held on 03.03.2017 in relation to recovery of outstanding dues of the certificate debtor in O.A. No. 264/2012. In Recovery Proceeding No. 171/2014, the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi invited on-line bids for auction of the properties described therein, as per notice at Annexure-1. Petitioner participated in respect of both the properties, but his grievances is in relation to Schedule-'B' properties. 3. According to him, after deposit of 25% of the bid amount on the auction date, on physical measurement of immovable properties in question, it was found to be only 1.70 acres compared to what was declared in proclamation of sale i.e. 2.27 acres and 0.16 acres. The land also did not have an approach road and as such, there were no easmentary rights. It is further contended on his behalf that the land is actually a tribal land. Petitioner thereafter has approached the Respondent Bank through representation on 17.03.2017 and claims to have made an objection before the Learned Recovery Officer vide Annexure-4 on 18.03.2017. It is submitted that auction is liable to be cancelled and the amount deposited by the petitioner is likely to be forfeited as the petitioner has not deposited the balance amount, as per the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and applicable rules thereunder. The property may again be e-auctioned, though petitioner was the successful bidder. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank submits that the recovery proceedings are still underway before the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery 2 Tribunal, Ranchi. Petitioner should have approached the Learned Recovery Officer through a proper application and after making requisite compliance including Court fees, etc. Proceedings before the Recovery Officer for realization of the certificate issued under the Act of 1993, are guided by the second schedule of Income Tax Act. He has also referred to the provisions of Rules 52, 58 and 62 relating to sale and proclamation of sale, procedure in default of payment and setting aside the sale where defaulter has no saleable interest. If the petitioner has any grievance, he may be relegated to the appropriate forum. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to move the Learned Recovery Officer today itself through proper application. 6. Let him do so. Writ petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid stand of the petitioner enabling him to move the Learned Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi with a proper application for redressal of the aforesaid grievances. Needless to say, the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal would consider the plea raised by the petitioner in accordance with law, provisions of the Act of 1993 and applicable rules thereunder, after hearing the concerned parties. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/ "