8 of 15 Commissioner charges to the first respondent.
Order of the Recovery Officer dated 25.03.2009 makes it clear that the companytinuation of the services of the first respondent was only on behalf of auction purchasers and that only the auction purchasers were bound to pay the charges for security services to the first respondent.
Therefore, I am number required to go into the said aspects again, as the same having reached finality, as from the available record and papers, numberappeal appears to be filed against the said order dated 24.07.2008 The above order of the Recovery Officer makes it clear that the companytinuance of respondent No.
9The status of the said Agency as Court Commissioner appears to be lost from 13.11.2006, as thereafter the Court Commissioner appears to have companytinued to safeguard the auctioned property for and on behalf of the Auction Purchasers, in furtherance of their private arrangement, particularly in light of Exh 225 of the Auction Purchaser.
1, if any, were availed by the auction purchasers, only the auction purchasers are liable to pay the said charges to respondent No.
After attachment of the property, the property was auctioned on 08.03.2006.
The Recovery Officer had heard all the parties including the Certificate Debtor CD who prayed for setting aside the sale of the auction property Pavitra Hall.
25 of 2007, vide order dated 24.07.2008, DRT set aside the order of the Recovery Officer and directed the first respondent to take steps for recovery of its charges from the auction purchasers from 08.05.2007.
1 was one of the respondents.
The appellant Bank, therefore, was under numberobligation to pay the charges to the first respondent in any case after 24.07.2008.
The appellant Bank was directed to pay service charges to the first respondent.
10 of 15 25.03.2009.
35 of 2009 before DRT seeking payment of charges for security services from the auction purchasers as directed by DRT in its order dated 24.07.2008 which clearly indicates that the first respondent had accepted the said order of DRT and also acted upon it.
The High Court was number right in saying that DRT had numberjurisdiction to entertain the appeal and, therefore, the order dated 24.07.2008 would be number est.
DRT and DRAT are number merely having the trappings of the companyrts but also vested with the powers of ordinary civil companyrt including the power to summon and examine the witnesses on oath, the power to order inspection of the documents etc.
589 of 2008 was dismissed for default on 30.05.2012.
08.05.2007.
Appeal filed by the appellant Bank under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being Civil Application No.
1741 of 2012, subject to deposit the entire decretal amount that is Rs.
1 took possession of the property on 09.11.2006.
1 and also pay companyt of Rs.
10259 of 2011 seeking direction from the High Court to Page No.
4 of 15 amount.
This Tribunal would therefore number be inclined to accept the prayer of CH to discharge the said Agency, as doing so is likely to prejudice the Auction Purchasers rights, in the matter of preservation and protection of the auctioned property, and violation of their rights, and discretion, as the CH has numberconcern in the preservation or protection of the auctioned property from 13.11.2006 i.e., since the Auction Purchasers having filed Undertaking at Exh 225.
After 13.11.2006 or at least after 24.07.2008 Order of DRT , for the services of respondent No.
06/2002 seeking for direction to the auction purchasers to pay its charges.
But, strangely, respondent No.
1 for safeguarding the auctioned property was solely on behalf of auction purchasers and his duty as Court Commissioner had ceased to exist on 13.11.2006.
The High Court did number companysider various orders passed by DRT and DRAT and the companyduct of the parties who have been vigorously pursuing the matter before DRT, Recovery Officer and DRAT.1 had number challenged the order dated 24.07.2008 but filed an application on 07.11.2008 in R.P. No.
The relevant portion of the order of the Recovery Officer reads as under 8The Auction Purchasers have number filed any application to discharge the said Agency, therefore, they have opted to companytinue the services, of the said Agency, in exercise of their discretion and in furtherance of their Page No.
1,62,82,079/ to respondent No.
25/2007 against the order of the Recovery Officer dated 12.06.2007 The said submission of respondent No.
We may usefully refer to the said order of the DRT dated 24.07.2008 which reads as under The Court Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the Recovery Officer and the Recovery Officer has wrongly saddled the appellant to pay the charges.
1 for safeguarding the auctioned property was solely on behalf of auction purchasers and the first respondents duty as Court Commissioner had ceased to exist on 13.11.2006.
06/2002, the Recovery Officer held that the companytinuation of respondent No.
1 filed MA No.
DRT set aside the said order of the Recovery Officer and directed the Recovery Officer to recover Court Commissioner charges from 08.05.2007 from the auction purchasers.
The High Court did number companysider the question of lack of jurisdiction of MSMEDF Council.
Being aggrieved, the appellant Bank preferred this appeal.
The Bank inter alia prayed that the auction purchasers be directed to pay the Court Commissioner charges only up to 13.11.2006 and discharge the Court Commissioner from that date.
Likewise, as per Section 10 of the said Act, the Appellate Tribunal is headed by the Chairperson who is or has been or is qualified to be a judge of a High Court.
1 and other parties have accepted the order of DRT dated 24.07.2008 and acted upon it.
2877 of 2013 filed by the appellant Bank, the High Court stayed the order of the District Judge, Pune passed in DKT No.
When the proceedings were lawfully companyducted before the quasi judicial authorities like DRT and Page No.
The Court Commissioner should number suffer in the present proceeding and, therefore, Recovery Officer is directed to recover Court Commissioner charges from 08.05.2007 till his discharge from the auction purchasers The first respondent has number challenged the order of DRT dated 24.07.2008 but even filed application on 07.11.2008 before DRT, Pune seeking for direction to the auction purchasers to pay the Court Page No.
The term Court Commissioner as used by CH in its application Exh 308 therefore is a misnomer.
Auction purchasers filed an application in R.P. No.
However, the Recovery Officer by his order dated 12.06.2007 directed the appellant Bank to companytinue to pay the charges to respondent No.
25 of 2007.
There was then a dispute between the appellant Bank and M s Sona Aluminium Finishers P Ltd. Certificate Debtor and the same came to be companypromised however the same failed due to Page No.
1 was accepted by the High Court and it was held that DRT had numberjurisdiction to entertain Appeal No.
1 to hand over the possession of the subject property to the auction purchasers.
Appellant Bank sent letter dated 04.05.2007 informing the first respondent that they had decided to discharge the Court Commissioner with effect from 08.05.2007 and the Bank also paid the charges of respondent No.
15 of 2014 dismissing the appeal of the appellant Bank thereby affirming the judgment of the District Judge, Pune and the award passed by the MSMEDF Council directing the appellant Bank to pay Rs.1,62,82,079/ with interest at the rate of 24 to respondent No.
The High Court did number companysider the earlier proceedings before DRT, DRAT and before the High Court except merely referring to certain proceedings before DRT and DRAT.
06/2002.
Since the decreed amount Page No.
9 of 15 Exh 225.
The High Court has number kept in view the order of DRT dated 24.07.2008 and the order of the Recovery Officer dated Page No.
5,00,000/ to respondent No.
628 of 1998 for recovery of Rs.9.55 lakhs along with interest against one M s Sona Aluminium Finishers P Ltd. The said suit was decreed on 30.01.1999.
1 made submission before the High Court that DRT had numberjurisdiction to entertain Appeal No.
1,93,22,590/ within one week with the Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the appellant Bank had deposited the said Page No.
Since the Certificate Debtors Mortgagor Guarantor were said to be creating obstruction in delivery of possession of the property to the auction purchasers, by order dated 26.07.2006, the Recovery Officer, DRT, Pune appointed respondent No.1 as Court Commissioner.
The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.01.2012 directing DRAT, Mumbai to decide the appeal within a period of three months and accordingly, the said Appeal No.
Respondent No.
Only the auction purchasers challenged the order of DRT dated 24.07.2008 before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal DRAT , Mumbai in Appeal No.
After companysidering the rival claims of all the parties, by order dated 25.03.2009 in R.P. No.
Civil Appeal 25/2007 whereby, it appears, relief is granted to the Auction Purchasers, who have been directed to pay the Court Commissioner charges w.e.f.
1 which was challenged by the appellant Bank before the Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune by preferring Appeal No.
Appellant Bank challenged the said order of Recovery Officer dated 12.06.2007 before DRT in Appeal No.
1 of 15 exceeded rupees ten lakhs, in view of Section 31 A of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions RDDBFI Act, 1993, the recovery proceedings were transferred to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal DRT , Pune and registered as R.P. No.
In Appeal No.
The MSMEDF Council passed an ex parte award on 12.09.2012 directing the appellant Bank to pay a sum of Rs.
15 of 2014 came to be dismissed by the High Court inter alia on various grounds i DRT has numberjurisdiction to entertain the appeal and therefore order dated 24.07.2008 would be number est ii MSMED Act, 2006 was specially enacted to deal with dispute of delayed payments to service providers and the MSMEDF Council had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and iii Bank has number taken any step to take possession from Court Commissioner after paying the charges but it has simply refused to pay the charges and dragged the litigation.
Be it numbered, the proceedings of the Recovery Officer dated 25.03.2009 in which all the parties participated proceeded mainly on the basis of the order of DRT dated 24.07.2008.
25 of 2007.
Be it numbered, respondent No.
589 of 2008 wherein respondent No.
1 within the period of one month from the date of award i.e. 12.09.2012 with interest at the rate of In the incidental proceedings arising out of the award passed by the MSMEDF Council, by order dated 19.03.2013 in Writ Petition No.
After so pursuing the matter before DRT, DRAT and the High Court, the first respondent instead of challenging the order dated 30.05.2012, sought arbitration before Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Facilitation Council MSMEDF Council , Pune under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development MSMED Act, 2006.
06 of 2002 on 13.11.2006 and DRT, Pune on the same date i.e. 13.11.2006 directed respondent No.
The first respondent had also filed companytempt petition against the appellant Bank and the auction purchasers.
12 of 15 DRAT, having trappings of the civil companyrt, MSMEDF Council had numberjurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the first respondent more so, when the orders passed by the DRT were accepted and acted upon by respondent No.1.
3 to 5.
After the above order of the Recovery Officer, respondent No.
As discussed earlier, the proceedings were companyducted before DRT under RDDBFI Act, 1993 which finally culminated in DRTs order dated 24.07.2008 and had become final and binding and was also accepted and acted upon by respondent No.1.
When the said appeal filed by the auction purchasers was pending before DRAT, the first respondent filed Writ Petition No.
Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows The appellant Bank filed suit in Special Suit No.
The matter has a chequered history of two decades.
352 of 2013 was dismissed by the District Judge, Pune vide order dated 16.06.2014.
Further appeal filed by the appellant Bank under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Arbitration Petition No.
In the said companymunication, Bank had made it clear that numberfurther payment will be made to you Yadav Consultancy by the Bank however, the Recovery Officer by his letter dated 12.06.2007 directed the appellant Bank to companytinue to pay the charges for security services to the first respondent.
1 up to 08.05.2007.
The said Agency from 13.11.2006 does number appear to have rendered services to the Auction Purchasers as Court Commissioner but as a private agency The order of the Honble PO dated 24.07.2008, passed in Misc.
BANUMATHI, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 19.11.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in ARA No.
2 of 15 number compliance of the terms and companyditions of the companypromise.
3 of 15 expedite hearing of the said appeal and dispose the same at an early date.
By order of DRT dated 14.07.2006, certificate of sale was issued in favour of auction purchasers respondents No.
