Delhi District Court
Sh. Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr vs The Industrial Finance Corporation Of ... on 28 November, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 (SOUTH EAST)
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS 262/2020
Shri Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. VERSUS
The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & 6 Ors.
1. Sh. Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr.
Through its Chairman & Managing Director
Prakash Ramdeo Jaiswal, Having its office Nr
Mahalaxmi Rice Mill, Govindpur Road,
Post+DistGondia441601 (M.S.)
2. D.J. Enterprises Ltd.
Through its Authorised Rep.
Deepak Ramdeo Jaiswal
Having its office at Ramdeo Sadan
Manohar Chowk, Gondia - 441601
...... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1. The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
2. M/s. Lan Eseda Industries Ltd.
Through its Managaing Director
Gale no.2, Lambodar Service Centre
Veer Hanuman Nagar. Khandarpada,
Daisar (W), Mumbai.
3. Philip Amolik S/o. Samul Amulik
R/o. Ratan House, Farnok S., Umar Bhai Path
Agripada, Mumbai.
CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 1 of 17
Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
4. M/s. Lan Eseda Software System Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Gale no.2, Lambodar Service Centre
Veer Hanuman Nagar. Khandarpada,
Daisar (W), Mumbai.
5. M/s. Lan Eseda Steels Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Having its Regd. Office at Plot no. C5
Gundia Industrial Area MIDC, Village
Sejgaon Post+Dist. Gundia (M.S)
6. Sunil Pawakar S/o. Tukaram Pawaskar
130 B1, Omkar Dr. B.A. Road, Samarth
Hanuman Path, Kada Chowk, Mumbai
7. The Maharastra Industrial Development
Corporation, Through its Regional Officer
Udhyog Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Civil Lines
Nagpur1.
.......Defendants
ORDER
1. This is a suit seeking declaration with consequent relief of recovery of auction money deposited towards sale consideration by plaintiff having been forfeited by alleged illegal orders passed by Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal II Delhi by enforcing and applying the provisions of Recovery of Debt Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act)
2. Objections with respect to maintainability of the suit were raised in view of bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court as stipulated under Section 17 & 18 CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 2 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
of the RDDBFI Act. In order to fortify his arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relief upon following judicial pronouncements :
1. Nahar Industries Enteises Ltd. Vs. Hong Kong & Sanghai Banking Corp. decided on 29.07.2009 CA No. 4796/2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24715 of 2008)
2. Robust Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. EIH Limited and Ors. decided on 07.12.2016 CA Nos. 1188611887 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2341023411 of 2011)
3. Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. & Anr. Vs. Bank of India & Ors. decided on 14.09.2018 IA 7103/2018 under Order XXXIX R 1 and 2 CPC
4. Mrs. Sunayana Malhotra & Ors. Vs. ICICI Bank decided on 06.10.2009 I.A. No. 5814/2009 in CS(OS) No. 527/2009
3. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the provisions of RDDBFI Act are primarily applicable to Banks and Financial Institutions, in capacity of being the Certificate Holder Financial Institution (CHFI) or the Certificate Debtor (CD) whereas the plaintiffs in this case are third parties in the capacity of Auction Purchaser and thus not necessarily covered under the ambit and scope of the Act. Attention of this Court was also drawn towards the fact that the Act prescribes summary procedure for disposal of the petitions filed thereunder without detailed leading or appreciation of evidence for just and fair determination of the issues raised, being bereft of elaborate substantive obligations or procedural compliances, instead bound only by principles of natural CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 3 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
justice. He has also argued that the Ld. DRT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in passing orders which are in sheer utter violation of relevant provisions of law, more particularly the impugned direction to forfeit a huge consideration amount of Rs. 62,50,000/ paid by the Auction Purchaser during execution proceedings before the said Tribunal. He also pointed out that Ld. DRT failed to take into consideration the documents sought to be filed and relied upon by the plaintiffs as in the capacity of Auction Purchasers during the recovery proceedings pending before Ld. DRT, in a bid to unearth the fraud or misrepresentation, deliberately played upon Ld. DRT which ultimately led to the passing of such directions imputing the interest of Auction Purchaser.
4. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, upon strength of the ratios, laid down in the judicial pronouncement relied upon by him, has further submitted that Civil Court is empowered to adjudicate upon 'all suits of civil nature', with the only exception with respect to suits where cognizance by the Civil Court has been either expressly or impliedly barred, as provided under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and thus, in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction, this Court is well within its domain to try the instant suit. It is accordingly prayed that summons of the suit be issued to all the defendants.
5. I have carefully heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. I have also meticulously and diligently examined the complete case record including the documents filed and citations relied upon. Plaintiff has assailed and sought declarations against several orders passed by Ld. Presiding CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 4 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
Officer, DRT II, Delhi allegedly being without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 or to the scheme and provisions of RDDBFI Act and consequentially refund of auction consideration of the property concerned which was directed to be forfeited by Ld. Presiding Officer, DRTII, Delhi.
6. At the outset, it should be borne in mind that the RDDBFI Act was enacted with a view and object to provide for the establishment of Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This legislation has also set out as exhaustive scheme for realisation of loans due to Banks and Financial Institutions.
7. Section 18 of RDDBFI Act bars the Court or any other authority to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters specified in Section 17 of the Act. The only exception contemplated is the Supreme Court or High Court exercising Writ Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 17 of the said Act lays down the jurisdiction, power and authority of Tribunals and Appellate Tribunal, established under the Act to entertain and decide applications from the Banks and Financial institutions for recovery of debts due to those Banks and Financial Institutions. Thus, a special machinery has been set up in the form of this Act for speedy and effective realisation of dues of Banks and Financial Institutions.
8. Now, coming to the facts of this present case, there are seven defendants CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 5 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
in the matter. The proceedings before DRTII, New Delhi were commenced upon an application filed by defendant no.1, i.e. the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. against defendant no.2 i.e. M/s. Lan Eseda Industries Ltd. in the year 1996 for recovery of sum of Rs. 81,47,124/ alongwith interest. This application was allowed in favour of defendant no.1 by Ld. DRT, Delhi by virtue of which defendant no.1 became the Certificate Holder Financial Institution (CHFI) and defendant no.2 respectively became the Certificate Debtor (CD). Upon an application filed before him, the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRTII, Delhi directed attachment and subsequently auction of the property as mentioned in para no.2 of the plaint, for which defendant no.4 M/s. Lan Eseda Software System Ltd. entered into License Agreement with defendant no.7, the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation on allegedly false representation that the said property belongs to defendant no.2 M/s. Lan Eseda Industries Ltd. (The CD). The property description as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint is plot no. C4/1, C4/2 and C5, all situated at Gondia Industrial Area within the limits of Village Mundipar, admeasuring 4.00,337.49 Sq. Mtrs. As per averments in the plaint, plot no. C4/1 and C4/2 were the properties for which defendant no.4 M/s. Lan Eseda Software Ltd. had entered into Licence Agreement with defendant no.7 the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and plot no. C5 was the one for which defendant no.5 M/s. Lan Eseda Steels Ltd. entered into License Agreement with defendant no.7 the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. It is alleged that defendant no.7 informed the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT II, Delhi vide a communication bearing no. RON/MIDC/GON/2738/2007 dated CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 6 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
25.04.2007 about discrepancy in the name of the parties as defendant no.2 M/s. Lan Eseda Industries Ltd. instead of defendant no.4 M/s. Lan Eseda Software Systems Ltd. and defendant no.5 M/s. Lan Eseda Steel Ltd. It is alleged that the Ld. Recovery Officer willfully ignored to take cognizance of the information and proceeded to issue direction for Sale Proclamation of all the scheduled properties.
9. Plaintiffs came into picture as Auction Purchasers of property bearing Plot no. C4/1 and Plot no. C4/2 situated at Gondia Industrial Area within the limits of Village Mundipur, having deposited Rs. 39.20 lakhs for Plot no. C4/1 and Rs. 23.30 lakhs for Plot no. C4/2 by plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.2 respectively. Upon consideration of sale of the auction plots, sale certificates were issued in favour of the plaintiffs. The sale was set aside upon an application filed by one Sanvijay Rolling Engineers Ltd., offering to purchase the respective auctioned properties for a consideration amount of Rs. 68 lakhs in place of 62 lakhs paid by plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.2 compositely. This order of setting aside sale of the two plots was challenged by the plaintiffs before Ld. DRT but they failed to get any relief. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court also confirmed the said Order as passed in Writ Petition no. 10219/2009. With respect to plot no. C5 situated at Gondia Industrial Area within the limits of Village Mundipar, also, upon issuance of Sale Proclamation Order, plaintiff no.1 participated and was issued Sale Certificate in its favour for auction consideration amount of Rs. 50.51 lakhs. It was qua this plot that plaintiffs subsequently entered into a Lease Agreement with Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd. Defendant no.6 assailed the order of CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 7 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
issuance of Sale Certificate in favour of plaintiff no.1 by allegedly misrepresenting the material facts and was successful, thereby setting aside sale of property bearing Plot no. C5. As a consequence of setting aside of sale, the Ld. Recovery Officer passed order against Adani PML to vacate the property. An application was also filed by defendant no. 3 Sh. Philip Amolik seeking recovery of rentals received by plaintiffs from Adani PML qua auctioned properties. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff later gathered information about defendant no.2 and defendant no.5 that those were dormant companies. Further, Adani PML filed civil suits against plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.2 respectively while the Ld. Recovery Officer directed Adani PML to pay compensation / mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 51,23,658/. Adani PML also proceeded to file criminal complaints against the plaintiff on account of unwarranted legal action taken by DRTII Delhi.
10.While the Order dated 08.12.2014 passed by Ld. Recovery Officer directing Adani PML to deposit compensation amount was challenged both, by the plaintiff as well as the Certificate Debtor Company, defendant no.2 and 5, the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRTII Delhi passed common order in both the appeals in utter violation of provisions of the Act, totally exceeding its jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff and partially allowing the appeals filed by the CD company, which Order was further challenged before Ld. Chairman, DRT Delhi by the plaintiff wherein also the appeal were dismissed summarily in limini without hearing the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the plaintiff were left remediless due to dismissal of appeal in limini in utter abuse of law.
CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 8 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
The review petition was again filed by the plaintiff against Order dated 09.12.2015 which was also dismissed vide Order dated 07.05.2018.
11.It is further alleged that the Attachment Order of the three plots were obtained by making false representation before the Ld. Recovery Officer who also acted arbitarily and passed order in gross misuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the sale of the auctioned plots were set aside in utter violation of provisions of second schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961. It is further pointed out that defendant no.3 and 6 ended up filing application without putting on record any authorization given to them on behalf of defendant no.2,4 and 5 and thus, the orders obtained by them are not legally sustainable. It is further averred that the provisions of RDDBFI Act contemplates filing of application by financial institution against the debtor for recovery of debt, but Ld. DRT Delhi exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining application filed by CD Company against the plaintiff for settling the claim of fixation of mesne profits which was totally beyond the scheme and provisions contained under the Act. It is further submitted that the plaintiff and Adani PML had no financial transaction with the CD company and thus, Ld. DRT illegally passed the compensation order in favour of CD company to be recovered from plaintiff and Adani PML. It is also alleged that CHFI company and CD company hatched conspiracy against plaintiff and obtained favourable orders from DRT by supporting each other's version, getting the debt of CD company satisfied from the pockets of third party who had no financial transactions with him. Plaintiffs have been alleged to be victims of fraud, adversely affected and prejudiced by the Judgments and Orders CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 9 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
passed by Ld. DRT Delhi, thus seeking declaration and recovery of forfeited money. It is further pointed out that the present suit is totally based upon the documentary evidence which are part of recovery proceedings in RC No. 171/2001 filed before DRT Delhi. Following reliefs have been sought in the matter :
a. It is prayed that it be declared that defendant no.2, 4 and 5 does not hold any legal and valid right, title and interest to the scheduled properties described vide para 2 above of this plaint. It be further declared that attachment Order procured by CHFI/ defendant no.1 from R.O., DRTII, Delhi on dated 27.12.2002 and 30.04.2003 pertaining to scheduled properties described vide para 2 above of this plaint is obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and is not legal.
b. It is further prayed that it be declared that plaintiffs hold legal and valid title after confirmation of sale by Recovery Officer by it order dated 06.08.2008 pertaining to property described vide 2(a) & Order dated 09.11.2009 pertaining to property described vide 2(b) which was passed in favour of Auction Purchasers. c. It may also be declared that sale becomes absolute after sale certificate is issued under Rule 63(1) & 65 of Second Schedule of Income Tax Act 1961. It be further declared that all orders which were passed by DRT, Delhi on all applications filed by defendant no.3 on behalf of defendant no.2 and by defendant no.6 on behalf of defendant no.5 without holding valid authorization to initiate such action or to file such application in RC no. 171/2001 are CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 10 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
illegal and orders on such applications are not legally sustainable in the eyes of law.
d. It be further declared that order dated 06.10.2008 passed by Ld. Presiding Officer, DRTII Delhi for cancellation of Sale of property described vide para 2(a) above is contrary to provisions contained under Rule 60 to 63 of Second Schedule of Income Tax Act.
e. It be further declared that order dated 13.04.2012 passed by Ld. Presiding Officer, DRTII, Delhi for cancellation of Sale of property described vide para 2(b) above is without jurisdiction is contrary to provisions contained under Section 30 of RDDBFI Act and under Rule 60 to 63 of Second Schedule of Income Tax Act & application was also hopelessly barred by limitation. f. It be further declared that Order dated 08.12.2014, passed by Ld. Recovery Officer, DRTII, Delhi fixing compensation for use and occupation of Scheduled property described vide para 2(a) above of this plaint to be recovered from ADANI PML is without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme and provisions of RDDBFI Act.
g. It be further declared that order dated 16.09.2015 passed by Ld. Presiding Officer, DRTII Delhi fixing compensation for use and occupation of Scheduled property described vide para 2(a) above of this plaint is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Scheme and provisions of RDDBFI Act.
h. It be declared that order dated 16.09.2015 passed by Ld. Presiding Officer, DRTII Delhi for forfeiture of auction money CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 11 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
for adjustment of debt payable by CD company and on account of use and occupation charges by Adani PML is without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme and provisions of RDDBFI Act. i. It be declared that order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Chairman, DRT Delhi in Appeal no. 357/2015, 358/2015 and 359/2015 filed u/S. 20 of RDDBFI Act is violative of Fundemental & legal Rights of Petitioner enshrined under article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
j. It is further prayed that a decree be passed against defendant no.1 for the sum of Rs. 62.50 lakhs deposited on 27.06.2008 towards auction consideration of property described vide para 2(A) of this plaint and which was ordered to be forfeited by the common order of PO, DRTII, Delhi in Appeal No. 6&7 of 2015 dated 16.09.2015 filed by defendant no.2 in RC No. 171 of 2001 titled IFCI Vs. LAN ESEDA. It is further prayed that interest @ 21% p.a. on the sum of Rs. 62.50 lakhs from the date of deposit dated 27.06.2008 onwards till its realization be allowed.
12.Taking the discussion further, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon findings given in various judgments which in terms of Section 9 of CPC, lay down that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try and decide the respective claim of parties in a suit, having authority to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same is barred expressly by a statute or by necessary implication.
13.It is settled proposition of law that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 12 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
plenary in nature and its exclusion must not be readily inferred. Any provision which may have an effect to oust jurisdiction of the Civil Court needs to be strictly interpreted and normally would lean in favour of a construction, retaining the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
14.In the scheme of RDDBFI Act, statutory provision contained in Section 18 of DRT Act, ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with respect to matters which comes within the purview of Section 17 thereof. Thus, within the four corners of specific purpose for which the Tribunal is constituted under the Act, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred only in respect of matters falling strictly within the purview of Section 17 and not beyond that, meaning thereby that the Civil Court shall continue to have jurisdiction with respect to any matter falling beyond the scope of Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 of the Act lays down that the Tribunal constituted under the Act shall have the jurisdiction, power and authority to decide the applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. Considering the specific object of enactment of the Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal is only supposed to entertain applications for recovery of debt, to be filed by banks or financial institution. Thus, a debtor or borrower independently cannot approach the DRT if a claim application or petition has not already been filed by the bank or financial institution. A debtor or borrower may, as an option and alternative to Civil Court as a forum, press its claim against the bank or financial institution in the form of set off or counter claim against the claim application. Moreover, the bank or financial institution may exercise its discretion to move the CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 13 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
Tribunal by filing an application that the set off or counter claim as filed by the borrower be not decided by the Tribunal.
15. There is a clear distinction between Tribunal under the said legislation and a Civil Court. The sole purpose of Tribunal is to decide upon the legally recoverable dues of banks and financial institutions. Any borrower, debtor or third party has no right to independently approach the Tribunal. Any declaratory relief cannot be sought by the debtor before a Tribunal. Further, unlike Civil Court which are necessarily subordinate to the High Court with the appeal from their judgment lie before a superior court, the Tribunals, although having all the trappings of a Civil Court, created to decide disputes of civil nature, can still neither be termed as Civil Court nor have any subordination to the High Court. The High Court can only exercise writ jurisdiction upon the Tribunal, the appeals from the judgments of the Tribunal lie before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act itself.
16.Coming to the facts of the present case and applying the legal principles with respect to the jurisdiction of Civil Court as discussed above, the plaintiffs are the 'Auction Purchasers' of 'Scheduled Properties' whose consideration amount were forfeited by the Order of Ld. Recovery Officer, DRTII Delhi. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has maintained that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted only with respect to the applications filed by Banks and Financial Institutions, seeking recovery of legal debts due from borrower and thus Auction Purchaser has all the right to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance. Ld. CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 14 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
Counsel for the plaintiff has also claimed the misrepresentation or fraud having been played upon the Tribunal by interested parties in terms of the well hatched conspiracy to extract certain order in their favour and against the plaintiff as Auction Purchaser. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that the Ld. DRT has utterly violated the provisions of law, exceeding its jurisdiction and passing orders which are not in consonance with the object of the Act.
17.It is undisputed and well settled that a Tribunal is not a Civil Court and has been constituted under a special enactment for a specific purpose. Its object, scope and manner of functioning is distinct than that of a Civil Court. The point which is relevant in the entire context is that the Civil Court has no supervision or superintendence over the orders and judgments passed by the Ld. DRT. The plaintiff being aggrieved of the Orders passed by the Ld. DRT, of forfeiture of the consideration amount and setting aside of sale proclamation of scheduled property, assailed the orders in the hierarchy set out by the Act itself. The Auction Purchaser always had the option to choose Civil Court as a forum for adjudicating upon the pleas and claims, agitated before Ld. DRT. Auction Purchaser challenged the order passed by Ld. DRT before the Ld. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and then even sought review of the Orders so passed within the hierarchy under the Act. Having exhausted all the available remedies under the scheme of the Act that the plaintiffs approached the Civil Court by filing a civil suit assailing the orders passed by different forums at different stages during the proceedings before Ld. DRT. The plaintiffs seem to have accepted the jurisdiction of Tribunal when its CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 15 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
order seem to favour the interest of the plaintiff and questioning the jurisdiction thereof when the orders were passed against the commercial interest of the plaintiff. Any independent person undeniably can approach the Civil Court for adjudication upon dispute of civil nature, however, having surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Act, now cannot at a later stage, can be allowed to press those very substantive claims already raised and decided by a competent forum under the Act, again before the Civil Court. The Civil Court cannot act as an Appellate Court to the decisions of Ld. DRT, also because the points sought to be raised in this petition have already been agitated before the available legal forums under the Act. The plaintiff as Auction purchaser contested its claim under the Act and now after having exhausted the remedies under the Act, have knocked at the doors of Civil Court raking relief on the facts refused to be acceded to by the Tribunal.
18.The Tribunal may not be the Civil Court but has the authority to use all procedural aspects provided in the Civil Procedure Code. It is settled that Section 22 of RDDBFI Act do not in any manner fetter the powers of Tribunal rather authorises it to even surpass the procedures in CPC laid down, making it bound only to adherence and observance of principles of natural justice. Thus, it is well within the statutory authority of the Tribunal to assess as to what procedure, not necessarily summary, to be adopted for disposing a particular application. Auction Purchaser presumably were well aware of the procedural limitations, if any, now being agitated by way of present plaint, when they chose to assail the adverse findings within the hierarchy of the Act.
CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 16 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
19. The suit filed by the plaintiff is held to be nonmaintainable on account of reasons set out by preceding paras. The suit is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
20. File be consigned to record room.
( Shelly Arora ) ADJ1 (South East) Saket Court New Delhi/28.11.2020 CS - 262/2020 Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Industrial Pg. 17 of 17 Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.