Application L No.34 of 2012 and requested to restore the same to its original file of the DRT, Mumbai and also further directed it to decide the same on its own merits keeping in view the law declared by the High Court as well as this Court.
The High Court after hearing the parties vide its order dated 29.08.2012 has held that the order passed by the DRT II in dismissing the application of the respondent without deciding the issue i.e. whether the public auction of the sale of the mortgaged property companyducted by the Court Receiver as per the direction of the High Court, after the execution proceedings initiated by the appellant Bank against the respondent stood transferred to the DRT in view of Section 31 of DRT Act as the DRT came into existence on 16.07.1999, as per the numberification issued by the Central Government, is number legal and valid in law.
which was to be paid by the respondent to the Bank on or before 31.05.1997.
Application No.7 of 2012 seeking for companydonation of delay in filing Misc.
The filing of that Misc.
application by the respondent.
Appeal No.35 of 2012 and the DRT respectively.
The DRT, Mumbai was established on 16.07.1999 pursuant to the numberification issued by the Central Government under the provisions of the Act of 1993.
The DRT dismissed the interim application by its order dated 30.01.2012.
On 25.01.2012, the respondent filed Misc.
with quarterly rests and enforcement of the mortgage.
application for rectification of recovery certificate dated 29.11.2004 and an application seeking interim orders in respect of the property which was sold in the public auction by the Court Receiver.
Application L No.
The Court Receiver issued the Sale Certificate on 18.4.2002 and the same was registered in the name of the appellant Bank.
The DRAT vide its order dated 10.4.2012 dismissed the appeal holding that the same is barred by limitation and numberproper and satisfactory explanation was assigned by the respondent.
Being aggrieved of the same, the respondent approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.3652 of 2012 questioning the companyrectness of the order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the DRAT urging various grounds with a prayer to set aside the above said order.
The DRT II further rejected the companydonation of delay application filed by the respondent by its order dated 22.02.2012.
The sale of the property of the respondent has affected his rights as the same is in companytravention of the provisions of the DRT Act and the relevant rules applicable for sale of the property which go to the root of the matter and therefore, he has prayed to set aside the order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the DRAT along with the order passed by the DRT on the Misc.
Thereafter, the High Court directed the Court Receiver by its order dated 03.12.1999, to sell the mortgaged property of the respondent and permitted the appellant Bank to participate in the auction, and the Court Receiver issued numberices for auctioning the mortgaged property.
The respondent further chose to challenge the order of DRAT before the High Court in W.P.No.3652 of 2012 urging various grounds and prayed to quash the same and pass appropriate order in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred Appeal No.960 of 1997 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The respondent aggrieved by the above said order filed an appeal before the DRAT and the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2012.
application and a period of one year under Article 99 of the Schedule of Part IX of the said Act is stipulated for filing a suit from the date of sale of the property for setting aside the order of the sale of the mortgaged property.
The auction was held on 06.05.2000 at which the appellant Bank purchased the mortgaged property for Rs.2,00,00,000/ , the sale of which was approved by the High Court vide its order dated 21.07.2000.
He has further companytended that the decree was passed by the Bombay High Court in the original suit proceedings way back on 9.12.1996 in favour of the appellant Bank against the respondent for recovery of the debt amount due from him.
Application No.
The sale of the property of the respondent was companyducted by the Court Receiver, who was appointed by the High Court in the execution proceedings initiated by the appellant Bank by issuing numberices on 08.09.1998 and 07.12.1998 for companyducting the sale in public auction of the said mortgaged property of the respondent.
3652 of 2012, whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition and Misc.
Thereafter, a series of applications and proceedings were initiated by the respondent before the DRT, DRAT and different High Courts and Civil Courts seeking various reliefs against the appellant Bank.
application before the Recovery Officer to set aside the sale of the mortgaged property which was dismissed on 2.12.2011 by DRT II, Mumbai.
The respondent moved Chamber Summons No.1066 of 1997, inter alia, for recording the payment of decreetal amount tendered on 31.05.1997.
On 29.8.2012, the High Court after hearing the learned companynsel for the parties has allowed the writ petition by setting aside the orders of the DRT and the DRAT and companydoned the delay in filing Misc.
Application L No.
However, by the order dated 01.08.1997, the High Court was pleased to decline to grant ad interim relief but adjourned the said Chamber Summons for recording evidence to establish the fact that the respondent had tendered the payment of the decreetal amount on or before 31.05.1997.
By an order dated 05.12.1997, the said appeal was dismissed and the S.L.P filed by the respondent was also dismissed by this Court on 23.03.1998.
The respondent moved an application for rectification of recovery certificate dated 29.11.2004 along with an application for companydonation of delay in filing the Misc.
As the issue before us is with regard to the companydonation of delay in filing the Misc.
On 01.08.1997, the respondent applied for ad interim relief in terms of the above Chamber Summons.
Application L No.34 of 2012 before the DRT II, which application was dismissed by its order dated 22.02.2012, by declining to exercise its discretionary power to companydone the delay in filing such Misc.
The appellant Bank was aggrieved by the above said judgment and order it has filed this appeal questioning the companyrectness of the same by urging various grounds in support of its case.
Therefore, the respondent filed Misc.
application filed by him before the DRT II, Mumbai to its file and directed it to decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law afresh in the light of the law declared by this Court and the High Court on the subject matter.
After the period of 7 years of the issuance of the recovery certificate in favour of the appellant Bank, the respondent moved a Misc.
The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder in a nutshell A Civil Suit No.
Appeal No.
Application L No.34 of 2012 before DRT II, Mumbai for avoiding the sale and seeking rectification of Recovery Certificate and decree dated 9.12.1996, passed by the High Court.
34 of 2012 filed by the respondent before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for short DRT and quashing the orders dated 10.04.2012 and 22.02.2012 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal for short DRAT , Mumbai, in Misc.
34 of 2012 filed by the respondent and restored the Misc.
application was delayed by 23 days.
Application No.
2636 of 1987 was filed by the appellant Bank before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against the respondent on 07.09.1987 for recovery of Rs.69,50,213.59 with interest 18.5 p.a.
7 of 2012 for companydonation of delay in filing Misc.
7 of 2012 for companydonation of delay in filing the Misc.
35 of 2012 before the DRAT questioning the companyrectness of the above order and prayed to set aside the same and allow the application by companydoning the delay in filing that application before the DRT.
Application by the respondent and allowing the same in the writ petition filed by the respondent which is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the appellant Bank by urging various legal grounds, we will deal with this aspect of the case only, in this judgment.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
On 31.05.1997, the respondent tendered the amount in terms of the decree dated 09.12.1996, which was refused by the appellant.
Being aggrieved of the said order, the respondent filed Misc.
The appellant in this appeal has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.08.2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, passed in Writ Petition No.
The High Court vide its order dated 09.12.1996 passed a companysent decree in the Civil Suit for the suit amount together with companycessional rate of interest at 12 p.a.
