c- ^ /^ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE H1GH COURT O^ CHHATTJSGARH AT SiLASPURC.G. PETITiONER:- VERSUS LJ.f2-r7n/^<^ Moti Lal Verma s/o Late jeevan Lai Verma Aged 6 O years r/o MIG 46 Padmnabhpur Durg C.G. NNDENTS 1 .Bank of Baroda Branch at Durg (M.P.) Now C..G. 2.M/S Bhagraj Manufacturing and Trading(Pvt.) Ltd.Regd. Office 192 B Pocket C Siddharth extension New Delhi 3. Govindla! Dhingra s/o Rajaram Dhlngra (Now expired) 4. Harbans Lal Dhingaras/o Rajaram Dhsngra 5. Ashok Dhingra s/o Govind lal Dhingra 6. M/S Dhingra & company MIG-37-38 @ - ^ V' . 7. Smt. Shanti Devi w/o Rajaram Dhingra ,fo. MO^S. 6 ? ^ \^/vy/^es^c^op ~ MIG 37-38- Padmnabhpur'Durg C.G." '/ c^y 8. Smt. Darshana aneja w/o Omprakash Aneja 7^N/ HiG-1/24 R4PHB Coioney Borasi Extension ^^)/ Tah and Distt. Durg 9. Smt. Beena Kumariw/o harbans Lal M1G 37-38 Padmnabhpur Durg C.G. 10.The debt recovery Officer Jabalpur.M.P. 11 .The presiding officer Debt recovery Jabalpur M.P. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226. 227 THE CONSTtTUTSON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, CERITiORARY AND OTHER APPRQPRJATE WR!T AND DIRECTLQNS. //y ^ ^3^[ r^wirt«,yTtlwico, Rirti<<-iy'< *ll*loi ^^T^ 3Tf^9T q^cp (T3^^6^) ^200^ 3?T^^TqT[R?H<p ^n^^T^m^ ^TcTT^R ^Tl%?f 3TT^^T 29.6-2005 Mr. Arjun Yadav, counsej for tl The petitjoner, who stood g Exdse Department in respect of a li^ has preferrad this writ pstition under iA/ith prayer to quash recovery pro Offlcer by way of auction of the proj fche ioan amount from respondent N and the proceedings of saie which is the dteposal of the petitlon. Brisf fscts iesding to fliing c petltson are respondent No.2 carrying the buslness of liquor who^s deceased), Harbans Lai Dhingraan^ passed a resoiution In meeting fo^j ^verdraft, ietter of credit, guarantee ^ |jp to the liniit of Rs,1 crore. Onj Dhingra and Harbsnsiai Dhingra we^ Ehe Bank. On 3-6-1983 respondentl |worth Rs.29,16,667/-. The petjtion|f ^ajesh Dhlngra, Rajiv Dhingra &| ^etltioner exeouted ©nequjtebie mcj ^utstandlng !oan and based on that| liquor after furnishing bank guarant^e I'espondent No.2. Respondent NoJ ^xcise Officer requested the Bank t{ cr)i<iIc")<TiTT ^TR^t' ^rTs<<? >(FJ|^IX ^3Tf^T^^T i©petffloner. luarantor to respondent No,2 before the quor ccntract awarded to respondent No.2, Articie 226/227 of ths Constitutlon of India, ceedings started by the Debts Recover^ serty of the petitioner and direct to recover o.2 & iegai heirs (respondents No.2 to,9), stiii to &e contmued jn future be stayed, tili |f this wrlt petltion, as set out In the writ |s a manufacturing aN trading company directQrs ars Govlnd Lal Dhingra (since Rajaram Dhinga (since deceased). They tho purpose of cash credit faciiity ioan, counter guarantee, and djscounting of bll! behaif of respondent No,2 Director R.R. re authorized to execute documents before No.1 provided facility of bank guarantee of er aiongwith R.R. Dhingra, G.L Dhingra, Ashok Dhingra stood guarantor. Th@ rtgage of immovable property towards the respondent No.2 obtained the contract for se issued by respondent No.1 in favour of 2 failed to pay the smount. The District \s pay the bank guarantee amount and the A SP/FS/20'05-20,000 'S'-1 XI-HC-78 ^3!vSf ^iWM^, ur^w\^, Rirtl'<-l^\ *iHrti a?Tr^ ^ ^^TWf^H^ ^SH3TI^5T^HN? 3TT^^T q?q»(4c|fj6|<g) ^200^ ?^nw^ri^pr 3n^^T 2_-t- <pi<4lo<TI<i *ii+ioT4'fe^ ^fax^i^ ^sri^ftan^^T bank requested respondent N41 ana informed to pay the amount, but the amount was noi paid by respofident No.2. Therefore, th©Bank paid to the Exoise Department. Ultimateiy, ^he Bank filed a csvlj suit for recovery of amount of Rs.47,38,411/- before the Di^trict Judge, Durg from where the dvii suit was transferred to the De^ts Recov^ry Tribunal, Jabaipur, constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Bar^ks and Finandai Institutions Act. 1993. The Tribuna! after issuing notsce to the respondents and petltioner passed ex-parte order after publishing In 'he now^papor. Further case of the petiti^ner is that the Tribunai passed order without giving proper notice, which is ii^ble set aside. The Tribuna! tesued recovery certjficate to the recovery offieer ff'om the property ofthe petitioner. have heard learned coyn^ej for the petitioner. The main argument of |eamec! counsel for the petjtioner is that the Tribunai is not recovering the an|iount from respondents No.2 to 10 and instead of thai tho D.R.T. is rocovorin^ the amount from tho petitionor. Now, tho recovery officer has started a^Gtion proceedings regarding the amount of mortgage property of the petitior) the auction proceedings be staye] Having heard iearned coi| petitlon, i am of the opinton that | Proper course for the petition< |er. Therefore, the execution proceedings snd ^. |nsei for the petitioner and having perused the the instant writ petltion is v^hoiiy misconceived. |r was to approach the Tribunal for seeking remedy under the iaw. if any e^-parte order was passed against the petitioner without giving proper notice, in Ipiat c-ase the petitioner is at jiberty to raise this point before the Tribunai, and o\ raised before the Tribunal. !n ;her points raised by the petitioner can aiso be the first instance, the Tribunai is the judicial authority constituted under the (^ecovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial ^Ml^?-q, i^TfNFT^, ^ :.(^,£^2.3>.2, s- •Tm"a c^^' ^ 1 -^' ^ nstitutions Act, 1993, and the Tribuna| has been consiituted under th@ speciai jsrder as to costs. Consequentiy, M.(W.)P.Nos4261/2005, 2262/2005 and j^o.5434/2005 stand disposed of. logssiation in order to curtaij the deJajy in recovory of bank loans and othor 'inanciai institutjons. Therefore, the pejtitioner should approach the Tribunai for 3ppropriate remedy. In the circumstances,! am of th^ opinlon that it is not a fit case in which :he extra ordinary juris(4'ction under ^rtscle 226 of the Constitution of India, .hould be invoked. The writ petition is tecordingjy. dismissed. There wil! be no i.A. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge y ^' Gi; PRJ—FS/350— 12/2000—50,000.