Canara Bank vs The Recovery Officer on 16 December, 2024

[Cites 30, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Canara Bank vs The Recovery Officer on 16 December, 2024

[OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023 W.P.(C) Nos.3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018] Heard Mr George Thomas Mevada (Sr) assisted by Mr Amal Geroge, Mr E K Nanda Kumar (Sr) assisted by Ms Ramola N, Mr George Poonthottam (Sr) assisted by Mr R Sunilkumar, Mr Manu Ramachandran, Mr Peer Mohamed Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr Jawahar Jose, Mr Varghese Cherian, Mr Sunil Sankar, Mr P Chandrasekhar, Sri Madhu Radhakrishnan learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The common question that arises for consideration in these petitions is whether the provisions of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 have been made applicable to proceedings for recovery of amounts determined as payable to a Bank/Financial Institution under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, 'RDDB Act') prohibits the OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 14 2024:KER:95040 proceedings from continuing beyond the period prescribed in that Rule.

2.1 Almost common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions. Therefore, these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. The brief facts of each case are stated hereunder:

Facts:

W.P.(C) No.6793/2018

3. The petitioner is a public-sector Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were the guarantors for loans obtained by one M/s Excellent Trading Company from the petitioner. Certain properties of these respondents were provided as security by way of mortgage. M/s Excellent Trading Company defaulted in the repayment of these loans which led to the initiation of proceedings against it as well as the 2nd and 3rd respondents by the petitioner under the RDDB Act. The petitioner filed O.A. No.47/2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, which was ordered in favour of the petitioner on 23.07.2013 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 15 2024:KER:95040 and consequently, the recovery certificate, DRC No.3947, was issued in favour of the petitioner.

3.1 In pursuance of DRC No.3947, the Recovery Officer began enforcement proceedings under DRC No.3947 in O.A. No.47/2013. However, the 2nd and 3rd respondents filed I.A. No.229/2018 on 12.01.2018 in DRC No.3947 praying to close DRC No.3947 under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961. The Recovery Officer passed an order dated 05.02.2018 holding that the recovery certificate expired on 31.03.2017 in terms of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961. The order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Recovery Officer is under challenge in the present writ petition. W.P.(C) No.3943/2023 with W.P.(C) No. 9592/2021

4. The petitioners are the judgment debtors in TDRC 01 of 2018 in O.A. No.11/2002 of Debts Recovery Tribunal Bangalore. After having suffered judgment in O.A. No.11/2002 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Bangalore, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9592/2021 challenged OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 16 2024:KER:95040 the order passed in O.A. No.11/2002 in W.P.(C) No.8641/2020 before the High Court of Karnataka. However, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition vide judgment in W.P.(C) No.9592/2021 and left it open for the judgment debtor in O.A. No.11/2002 to challenge the same before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

4.1 Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Appeal, AIR 715/2018, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, which was dismissed. In the meanwhile, a recovery certificate issued in O.A. No.11/2002 was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam on 23.03.2007 before the Recovery Officer for execution. The recovery proceedings were initiated by the Recovery Officer against the mortgaged property situated in Alleppey. Subsequently, after the establishment of DRT-II, the recovery certificate was reposted before the Recovery Officer of DRT-II and renumbered as TDRC 1/2018. The petitioners objected to the recovery proceedings on the grounds that the same were barred by limitation as prescribed under Rule 68B of the OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 17 2024:KER:95040 Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961. However, the Recovery Officer dismissed the contention and allowed the Bank to take physical possession of the mortgaged properties.

4.2 Against the decision of the Recovery Officer in I.A. No.863/2020, a Review Petition was filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3943/2023 stating that the writ petitioner was a German citizen and, therefore, mortgage of the immovable property could not have been made as it was in violation of the provisions of Section 31 of FERA. The Recovery Officer dismissed the said Review Petition.

4.3 The present writ petitions have been filed inter alia challenging the orders passed by the Recovery Officer as being null and void and for a declaration that the decree passed in O.A. No.11/2002 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Bangalore is also null and void. O.P.(DRT) No.517/2023

5. M/s M R Syndicate and M/s Royal Décor, two partnership firms, availed financial assistance from the 1st respondent Bank for their OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 18 2024:KER:95040 business by mortgaging the properties of the partners of the two firms. The loan account of the two firms became NPA, and the 1st respondent Bank filed an Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I Ernakulam for recovery of the Debts due to the respondent Bank as O.A. No.526/2014. The petitioner had given security for such loans by mortgaging his properties. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application vide order dated 21.01.2017 in O.A. No.526/2014 and issued a recovery certificate DRC No.56/2017 dated 24.04.2017. The petitioner filed I.A. No.66/2022 in DRC No.66/2017 before the Recovery Officer. I.A. No.66/2022 came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2023.

5.1 According to the petitioner, Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 provides that no sale of the immovable property should be made after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial years in which the order giving rise to a demand of any tax, interest, fine, penalty of any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has become conclusive under OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 19 2024:KER:95040 the provisions of Section 245-I or as the case may be, final in terms of the provisions of Chapter XX. In the present case, the final order and recovery certificate were issued on 21.01.2017. The period of three years from the end of the financial year was over by 31.03.2020. Therefore, the sale of the scheduled property based on the recovery certificate was illegal and in violation of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961.

O.P.(DRT) No.446/2023

6. The petitioners took agricultural loans from the 1st respondent Bank. The loan accounts became NPA, and the respondent Bank recalled them and filed O.A. No.122/2013 to recover the debt. The O.A. was allowed on 12.07.2016 and recovery certificate DRC No.4613 was issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 09.12.2016. The recovery officer proceeded to enforce the recovery certificate. At this stage, the petitioners filed I.A. No.26/2022 in DRC 4613 for the closure of the recovery certificate on the ground that Rule 68B of the Second OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 20 2024:KER:95040 Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 provides that after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand of any tax, interest, fine, penalty of any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has become conclusive under the provisions of Section 245-I or as the case may be, final in terms of the provisions of Chapter XX. As the final order was passed on 12.07.2016 and the recovery certificate was issued only on 09.12.2016, the period of three years from the end of the financial year was over by 31.03.2020. The Recovery Officer, however, dismissed I.A. No. 26/2022 vide order dated 10.11.2022, which is under challenge in the present OP (DRT).

O.P.(DRT) No.394/2022

7. The petitioners availed loan from the State Bank of India. Their loan accounts became NPA. The Bank recalled the loan and initiated recovery proceedings by filing O.A. No.384/2004 and issued recovery certificate DRC No.3504 on 30.01.2012 giving a right to the Bank OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 21 2024:KER:95040 to recover an amount of Rs.1,33,07,942.48. The recovery certificate was forwarded to the Recovery Officer under Section 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993. The Recovery Officer, to enforce the recovery certificate, put the secured asset on sale through a public auction on multiple occasions. However, the sale did not materialize due to the want of bidders.

7.1 The petitioners have filed the present OP (DRT) for directions to the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Ernakulam to drop further proceedings in TDRC No.723/2016 (DRC No.3504) on the ground that the Bank is precluded from proceeding with the matter because of the law of limitation as provided in of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961.

Borrowers' contentions:

8. The borrowers would submit that the proceedings before the Recovery Officer of the sale of immovable property in terms of the recovery certificate would be incompetent after the limitation OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 22 2024:KER:95040 prescribed under the provisions of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act. By virtue of Section 29 of the RDDB Act, certain provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly the provisions of the Second and Third Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules 1962 have been incorporated. This is a provision in the RDDB Act by incorporation and the provision so incorporated becomes an integral part of the incorporating Statute.

8.1 The phrase 'as far as possible' in Section 29 of the RDDB Act means that the Income Tax Rules may not apply where it is not at all possible to apply them having regard to the scheme and the context of the legislation. The Rules deal with the process of recovery of the amount due and present no difficulty in enforcing them for recoveries under the RDDB Act where it is applicable and indispensable. The expression 'as far as possible' in Section 29 of the RDDB Act would simply indicate that the provisions of the Income Tax Rules are applicable except such of them which do not have any role to play in the matter of OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 23 2024:KER:95040 recovery of debts recoverable under the RDDB Act. The expression 'as far as possible' in Section 29 of the RDDB Act does not mean to give discretion to the Recovery Officer to apply the said Rules or not to apply the same in specific fact situations. Rule 68B of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act is applicable in full vigour except in certain circumstances while making recovery under the RDDB Act. There can be no impossibility in complying with the provisions of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the same would be applicable in cases where recovery of dues is being made under the RDDB Act.

8.2 It is further submitted on behalf of the borrowers that, the view taken by this Court, in W.P.(C) No.13975/2022, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Paramsivam C N v. Sunrise Plaza through Partner1, is entirely contrary to the law laid down in the said 1 (2013) 9 SCC 460 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 24 2024:KER:95040 judgment of the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the proceedings before the Recovery Officer are barred by limitation, in view of the judgment in Paramsivam (supra).

8.3 Furthermore, the learned Counsel for the borrowers also relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ratheesh M N v. Debt Recovery Tribunal2 to contend that any sale of the secured asset to recover the Bank/Financial Institution's dues beyond the period specified in Rule 68B cannot be sustained. Reliance is also placed in M/s Bio Research Pharmaceuticals v. State Bank of Travancore 3 to contend that notwithstanding the availability of any alternative remedy, the Original Petitions and Writ Petitions are maintainable against the proceedings of the Recovery Officer which are beyond the limitation prescribed under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act. Bank/Financial Institution's submission:

2019 (1) KLT 792 3 2016 KHC 254 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 25 2024:KER:95040

9. The learned Counsel for the Banks/Financial Institutions have submitted that Section 29 of the RDDB Act only requires the provisions of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act to be applicable, as far as possible. However, it would not mean that the same can be applied to the sale of secured assets (under the recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal). Section 29 of the RDDB Act itself provides that the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act 1961 and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules 1962 shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions and the Rules referred to the amount of debt due under this Act instead of the Income Tax Act. Under the Income Tax regime, there is a specific requirement to attach the property for recovery of amounts due to the Government as tax. Therefore, Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 is not applicable for the enforcement of the recovery certificate against the secured asset.

OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 26 2024:KER:95040 9.1 Once a recovery certificate is obtained by the Bank/ Financial Institution from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the same is required to be given effect to and enforced by the Recovery Officer. So, there is no role for the Bank/Financial Institution in the enforcement of the recovery certificate. Thus, there cannot be a time limit on the enforcement of the recovery certificate since the Bank/ Financial Institution who is the beneficiary of the certificate, has no role in enforcing the recovery certificate against the secured asset. The Bank/Financial Institution cannot be made to suffer on account of any failure of the Recovery Officer in enforcing the recovery certificate.

10. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments:

i.      C.N. Paramasivam v. Sunrise Plaza4

ii.     Kutaguptan K v. Canara Bank5

iii.    The South Indian Bank Limited v. Recovery Officer6


4
  2013 9 SCC 460
5
  2010 (1) ILR (Ker) 464
6

Judgment dated 06.07.2022 in W.P.(C) No.13975/2022 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 27 2024:KER:95040 iv. Mitexco v. Canara Bank7 v. J N Krishnan v. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank 8 vi. V. Chakrapani v. State Bank of India9 10.1 It has been further submitted that the Division Bench judgment in Ratheesh M N v. Debt Recovery Tribunal10 cannot be relied on as the said judgment has not considered the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in K Kutaguptan (supra) and the judgment of Ratheesh M N (supra), and further, it has been stayed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.9931-9932/2019.

10.1.1 It is further submitted that as a result of staying the operation of the judgment dated 19.02.2019 passed in Ratheesh M N (supra) by the Supreme Court vide its order, the judgment passed by this Court in Ratheesh M N (supra) is not final, effective and binding on the 7 MANU/MH/0668/2014 8 MANU/TN/3287/2011 9 AIR 2011 AP 27 10 AIR 2019 Ker 134 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 28 2024:KER:95040 parties as per the dictum laid down in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala11 and Khoday Distillery v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karahane Limited12. It has been further submitted that the judgment of the Division bench in the Ratheesh case is per incuriam as it is without taking note of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Paramasivam C.N. v. Sunrise Plaza13 as well as the Supreme Court judgment in Raghunathrai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank14.

10.2 It is further submitted that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the recovery proceedings as per the provisions of the RDDB Act. If there is a conflict between the provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Rules, the Act would prevail. Considering the provisions of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, it is clear that it is in conflict with the scheme of 11 MANU/SC/0432/2000 12 2019 4 SCC 376 13 (2013) 9 SCC 460 14 (2007) 2 SCC 230 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 29 2024:KER:95040 the RDDB Act, and therefore, the provisions of the RDDB Act would prevail in execution proceedings under the RDDB Act. It is further submitted that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act would not be applied to the recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act as the operational framework of the Income Tax Act differs fundamentally from that of the RDDB Act. It has been also submitted on behalf of the Bank/Financial Institutions that against the dismissal of the Interlocutory Applications, the borrowers would have the effective alternative remedy under Section 30 of the RDDB Act which provides for appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer and therefore the OP (DRT)/W.P.(C) would not be maintainable.

Rules:

11. It would be apt to take note of the relevant provisions of the RDDB Act and the relevant Rules.

11.1 Section 29 of the RDDB Act provides:

"29. Application of certain provisions of Income-tax Act.--The provisions OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 30 2024:KER:95040 of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, as in force from time to time shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions and the rules referred to the amount of debt due under this Act instead of to the Income-tax:

Provided that any reference under the said provisions and the rules to the "assessee" shall be construed as a reference to the defendant under this Act"

11.2 Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 reads as follows:

"Time limit for sale of attached immovable property. 68B. (1) No sale of immovable property shall be made under this Part after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to a demand of any tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has become conclusive under the provisions of Section 245-I or, as the case may be, final in terms of the provisions of Chapter XX:

Provided that where the immovable property is required to be re-sold due to the amount of highest bid being less than the reserve price or under the circumstances mentioned in rule 57 or rule 58 or where the sale is set aside under rule 61, the aforesaid period of limitation for the sale of the immovable property shall stand extended by one year. OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 31 2024:KER:95040 (2) In computing the period of limitation under sub-rule (1), the period--

(i ) during which the levy of the aforesaid tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum is stayed by an order or injunction of any court; or (ii ) during which the proceedings of attachment or sale of the immovable property are stayed by an order or injunction of any court; or (iii ) commencing from the date of the presentation of any appeal against the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer under this Schedule and ending on the day the appeal is decided, shall be excluded :

Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation for the sale of the immovable property is less than 180 days, such remaining period shall be extended to 180 days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly.

(3) Where any immovable property has been attached under this Part before the 1st day of June, 1992, and the order giving rise to a demand of any tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has also become conclusive or final before the said date, that date shall be deemed to be the date on which the said order has become conclusive or, as the case may be, final.

(4) Where the sale of immovable property is not made in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the attachment order in relation to the said property shall be deemed to have been vacated on the expiry of the time OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 32 2024:KER:95040 of limitation specified under this rule.

Discussion and Analysis:

12. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

13. Section 29 of the RDDB Act provides that "the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act 1961 and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules 1962, as in force from time to time shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modifications ........". Section 24 of the RDDB Act makes the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal.

14. In International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited v. Official Liquidator15, while considering the question as to whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to an appeal under the amended provisions of Section 30 of the RDDB Act, 15 (2017) 16 SCC 137 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 33 2024:KER:95040 the Supreme Court held:

"11. An "application" is defined under Section 2(b) of the RDB Act as one made under Section 19 of the Act. The latter provision in Chapter IV deals with institution of original recovery proceedings before a Tribunal. An appeal lies against the order of the Tribunal under Section 20 before the Appellate Tribunal within 45 days, which may be condoned for sufficient cause under the proviso to Section 20(3) of the Act. The Tribunal issues a recovery certificate under Section 19(22) to the Recovery Officer who then proceeds under Chapter V for recovery of the certificate amount in the manner prescribed. A person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer can prefer an appeal before the Tribunal under Rule 4, by an application in the prescribed Form III. Rule 2(c) defines an "application"

to include a memo of appeal under Section 30(1). The appeal is to be preferred before the Tribunal, as distinct from the Appellate Tribunal, within 30 days. Section 24 of the RDB Act, therefore, manifestly makes the provisions of the Limitation Act applicable only to such an original "application" made under Section 19 only. The definition of an "application" under Rule 2(c) cannot be extended to read it in conjunction with Section 2(b) of the Act extending the meaning thereof beyond what the Act provides for and then make Section 24 of the RDB Act applicable to an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Act. Any such interpretation shall be completely contrary to the legislative intent, extending the Rules beyond what the Act provides for and limits. Had the OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 34 2024:KER:95040 intention been otherwise, nothing prevented the legislature from providing so specifically."

15. In Standard Chartered Bank v. MSTC Limited16, the Supreme Court again took the view that the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply only to the proceedings under Section 19 of the RDDB Act. These decisions, no doubt, take the view that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 do not apply while filing an appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer under Section 30 of the RDDB Act or while filing an application for review under Rule 5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993. However, these decisions clearly take the view that the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply to the proceedings under Section 19 of the RDDB Act.

15.1 In this context, sub-sections (20), (21), and (22) of Section 19 of the RDDB Act should be noted. Sub-section (20) of Section 19 of the 16 (2020) 13 SCC 618 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 35 2024:KER:95040 RDDB Act provides for the issuance of a final order, after adjudication of the application. Sub-section (21) of Section 19 of the RDDB Act provides for the issuance of a copy of the final order and the recovery certificate. Sub-section (22) of Section 19 of the RDDB Act reads as under:

"The Presiding Officer shall issue a certificate of recovery along with the final order, under sub-section (20), for payment of debt with interest under his signature to the Recovery Officer for recovery of the amount of debt specified in the certificate"

15.2 Thus, the issuance of a recovery certificate is part of the proceedings under Section 19, and therefore, such a recovery certificate can be executed within the period of limitation specified under Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963. The recovery certificate issued in terms of Sub-section (22) of Section 19 of the RDDB Act must be construed as a 'decree' for the purposes of applying the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963. Considering the law laid down in International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited (supra) and Standard OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 36 2024:KER:95040 Chartered Bank (supra), it can safely be held that the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 apply to the proceedings under Section 19 of the RDDB Act.

16. Section 24 of the RDDB Act provides that the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 shall, as far as may be, apply to an application made to a Tribunal. Article 136 of the Limitation Act provides a period of limitation of 12 years for filing an execution petition. Kutaguptan v. Canara Bank17

17. The learned Single Judge held that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, which applies to the proceedings covered by Section 245-I or Chapter XX of the Income Tax Act, does not, in any view of the matter, apply to the proceedings under the RDDB Act. Section 29 of the RDDB Act does not make the Second and the Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax (Certificate 17 (2010) 1 KLT 361 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 37 2024:KER:95040 Proceedings) Rules 1962, as in force from time to time, in wholesale incorporation by reference into RDDB Act, but makes those provisions applicable only with necessary modifications as may be required and as far as possible. Both provisions are to be modulated and applied to give effect to the purpose of the RDDB Act, i.e., to effectuate recovery in accordance with the law and not to stultify it by conceiving bottlenecks.

17.1 Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:

"6. Without prejudice to the modes under S. 25 of the RDB Act, Recovery Officer may take recourse to S. 28, like deduction from salary etc. After providing detailed procedures for recovery under Ss. 25 and 28, S. 29 of the RDB Act provides that the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the IT Act and the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, as in force from time to time shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions and the rules referred to the amount of debt due under the RDB Act instead of the I.T. Act. This provision in S.29 does not result in a wholesale incorporation by reference, of the provisions contained in the Second and Third Schedules of the I.T. Act or of the provisions in the Income Tax OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 38 2024:KER:95040 (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, into the RDB Act, but makes those provisions applicable only with necessary modifications as may be required and as far as possible. Those provisions are to be modulated and applied to give effect to the purpose of the RDB Act, that is, to effectuate recovery in accordance with law, and not to stultify it by conceiving bottle-necks.

7. Adverting to R. 68B of the Second Schedule, it can be seen that the restriction is on sale and the restriction is made referable to the conclusiveness of the demand and the finality of the case. Such conclusiveness is made on the basis of S. 245-1 and Chap. XX of the I.T. Act. The provisions in Chap. XX of the I.T. Act are not only not incorporated by reference into the RDB Act, but are not even referred to in S. 29 of the RDB Act as relatable to the proceedings under that Act. Therefore, R. 68B of the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act which applies to proceedings covered by S. 245-1 or Chap. XX of the I.T. Act, does not, in any view of the matter, apply to proceedings under the RDB Act."

C N Paramasivam v. Sunrise Plaza18

18. The Supreme Court was dealing with the applicability of Rules 57 and 58 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act for making 18 (2013) 9 SCC 460 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 39 2024:KER:95040 recovery of the dues under the RDB Act. The question for consideration was whether the expression "as far as possible" in Section 29 of the RDDB Act renders the provision of Rule 57 directory, no matter whether the same is couched in a language that is manifestly mandatory in nature.

18.1 It was held that the expression "as far as possible" is indicative of a certain inbuilt flexibility. The scope of that flexibility extends only to what is 'not at all practicable'. Further, it was held that the phrase 'as far as possible' used in Section 29 of the RDDB Act would mean that the Income Tax Rules may not apply where it is not at all possible to apply them having regard to the scheme and context of the legislation.

18.2 Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that considering the language employed in Rule 57 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, the Recovery Officer would not have the discretion in respect of making a deposit of the amount by the borrower to redeem the property.

18.3 Paragraphs 23 to 27 are extracted hereunder:

"23. It follows that while the phrase "as far as possible", may be OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 40 2024:KER:95040 indicative of a certain inbuilt flexibility, the scope of that flexibility extends only to what is "not at all practicable". In order to show that Rules 57 and 58 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act may be departed from under the RDDB Act, it would have to be proved that the application of these Rules is "not at all practicable" in the context of RDDB Act.

24. The interchangeable use of the words "possible" and "practicable"

was previously established by a three-judge Bench of this Court in N K Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1977) 1 SCC 308, where this Court observed that in simple Anglo-Saxon Practicable, feasible, possible, performable, are more or less interchangeable.

25. Webster defines the term 'practicable' thus :

"1. That can be put into practice; feasible. 2. That can be used for an intended purpose; usable."

Black's Law Dictionary similarly defines 'practicable' as follows :

"(Of a thing) reasonably capable of being accomplished; feasible."

26. It is, therefore, reasonable to hold that the phrase "as far as possible"

used in Section 29 of the RDDB Act can at best mean that the Income Tax Rules may not apply where it is not at all possible to apply them having regard to the scheme and the context of the legislation.

27. There is nothing in the provisions of Section 29 of RDDB Act or the scheme of the rules under the Income Tax Act to suggest that a discretion wider than what is explained above was meant to be conferred upon the Recovery Officer under Section 29 of the RDDB Act or Rule 57 of the OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 41 2024:KER:95040 Income Tax Rules which reads as under:

"57. (1) On every sale of immovable property, the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay, immediately after such declaration, a deposit of twenty-five per cent on the amount of his purchase money, to the officer conducting the sale; and, in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be resold.

(2) The full amount of purchase money payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the Tax Recovery Officer on or before the fifteenth day from the date of the sale of the property.

It is clear from a plain reading of the above that the provision is mandatory in character. The use of the word "shall" is both textually and contextually indicative of the making of the deposit of the amount being a mandatory requirement."

K Kutaguptan v. Canara Bank19

19. A Division Bench of this Court held that to the extent indicated therein, the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Rules are applicable in respect of the recoveries under the RDDB Act. However, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that, on facts, the sale conducted 19 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 41694 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 42 2024:KER:95040 was within the time stipulated by the statutory provisions. South Indian Bank Limited v. Recovery Officer, DRT-220

20. A learned Single Judge, after having analysed the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kutaguptan's case (supra) as well as the Supreme Court judgment in Paramsivam's case (supra), held that all the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act would not apply to the recovery proceedings following a final order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Ratheesh M N v. Debts Recovery Tribunal21

21. The Division Bench held that in terms of Section 29 of the RDDB Act, the Bank was obliged to follow the procedure for recovery of dues, as prescribed under the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, read with the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules 1962, to the extent applicable to the proceedings under the RDDB Act. Rule 68B of 20 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 9372 21 (2019) 1 KLT 792 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 43 2024:KER:95040 the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act mandates that no sale of immovable property shall be made after the expiry of three years from the end of the Financial Year in which the order giving rise to the demand of the dues becomes conclusive. The said judgment has been stayed by the Supreme Court.

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala22

22. The Supreme Court has held that if a judgment, decree or order is stayed, it would amount to suspending the operation or execution of the judgment, decree or order under challenge.

22.1 Sub-paragraph 4 of paragraph 14 of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

"4. In spite of a petition for special leave to appeal having been filed, the judgment, decree or order against which leave to appeal has been sought for, continues to be final, effective and binding as between the parties. Once leave to appeal has been granted, the finality of the judgment, decree or order appealed against is put in jeopardy though it continues 22 (2000) 6 SCC 359 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 44 2024:KER:95040 to be binding and effective between the parties unless it is a nullity or unless the Court may pass a specific order staying or suspending the operation or execution of the judgment, decree or order under challenge.

Dismissal at the stage of special leave without reasons, no res judicata, no merger."

The said view has been reiterated in Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal 23. Union of India v. Major Bahadur Singh24

23. It is well-settled that the observations of the Courts cannot be read as theorems nor as provisions of the Statute. Any observation cannot be taken out of their context to say that it is a precedent.

23.1 Paragraphs 9 to 12 explain what would constitute a precedent, which would read as follows:

"9. The courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of the courts are 23 (2019) 4 SCC 376 24 (2006) 1 SCC 368 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 45 2024:KER:95040 neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of the courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton³ Lord MacDermott observed: (All ER p. 14 C-D) "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge...."

10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co.4 Lord Reid said: (All ER p. 297g-h) "Lord Atkin's speech is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham (No. 2)5 observed: (All ER p. 1274d-e) "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament;" and, in Herrington v. British Railways Board Lord Morris said: (All ER p. 761c) OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 46 2024:KER:95040 "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case."

11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.

12. The following words of Hidayatullah, J. in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: (Abdul Kayoom v. CIT, AIR p. 688, para 19) "19. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive."

* * * "Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches, else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it."

OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 47 2024:KER:95040 Conclusion:

24. The decisions in Bio Research Pharmaceuticals (supra) and Paramsivam (supra) only establish that the phrase "as far as possible" in Section 29 of the RDDB Act does not mean that the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act need not be followed at all or can be deviated from at the whims and fancies of the Recovery Officer. In other words, both decisions only hold that where such provisions are in tune with the Scheme of the RDDB Act, they must be followed without departure.

24.1 It is held that the period of limitation for recovery of the dues of the Banks/Financial Institutions under Section 19 of the RDDB Act will be the period of limitation prescribed in Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963.

24.2 The provisions of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 is not applicable to proceedings for recovery of OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 48 2024:KER:95040 amounts determined as payable to a Bank/Financial Institution under the provisions of the RDDB Act.

24.3 In light of the aforementioned discussions and reasoning, the petition filed by the Bank/Financial Institution is allowed, and the petitions filed by the borrowers/guarantors are dismissed.

Result:

W.P.(C) No.6793/2018 filed by the Bank stands allowed.

W.P.(C) Nos. 9592/2021, 3943/2023 and O.P.(DRT) Nos. 394/2022, 446/2023, and 517/2023 filed by the borrowers/guarantors stand dismissed. However, without costs.

All Interlocutory Applications regarding interim matters stand closed.

Sd/-

D K SINGH JUDGE jjj OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 49 2024:KER:95040 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3943/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF PETITIONER DATED 24.3.2021 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 14.6.20022 IN LOAN SANCTION LETTER DATED 10.04.2000 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 11/2002 IN THE DRT KARNATAKA.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY CERTIFICATE NO DCP 4686 DATED 23.3.2007ISSUED BY THE DRT KARNATAKA Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. F.NO.OA 11/2002 DATED 27/9/2013 ISSUED BY THE DRT KARNATAKA.

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF OA 11/2002 IN THE FILE OF DRT KARNATAKA Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FROM 1.1.2006 TO 22.8.2007 IN RESPECT OF M/S MEICKO GRANITES Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 23.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NIL DATED IN JULY 2017ISSUED BY THE RE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.1.2018 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DRT/BLR/TR/6886 DATED 22.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER OF 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER LETTER NO.DRT BLR/TR/6886 DATED 5.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 50 2024:KER:95040 RECOVERY OFFICER OF 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TWO SETS OF IA 863/2020 IN TDRC 1/2018 DATED 4.9.2020 FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA 1232/2020 DATED 2.12.2020 FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE RECOVERY OFFICER DRT-2 ERNAKULAM Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 5.4.2021 IN IA 863/2020 BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 5. 7.2021 IN IA 863/2020 BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.4.2022 IN IA 863/2020 IN TDRC 1/2018.

Exhibit P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.2.2018 IA NO.160/2018 IN DRC 3911 IN OA 226/2012 ISSUED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER –2- DRT- 2 ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.12.2017 IN WA 60/2010. Exhibit P22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.3.2022 IN SLP NO.

1733/2018 OF THE SUPREMECOURT OF INDIA.

Exhibit P23 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM MEMO DATED 13.7.2015 IN TDRC 43. Exhibit P24 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM MEMO DATED 1.10.2018 IN TDRC 1/2018 / TDRC 43.

Exhibit P25 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM MEMO DATED 05/11/2018 IN TDRC 1/2018 / TDRC 43.

Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE DATED 12.11.2018 IN TDRC 1/2018.

Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10.8.2022 IN TDRC 1/2018. Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION DATED 21.11.2022 IN OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 51 2024:KER:95040 TDRC 1/2018.

Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION IA 104/2022 IN IA 863/2020 IN TDRC 1/2018.

Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DATED 21.11.2022 IN REVIEW PETITION IA 104/2022 IN IA 863/2020 IN TDRC 1/2018 Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2022 IN REVIEW PETITION IA 104/2022 IN IA 863/2020 IN TDRC 1/2018.

Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.12.2022 IN IA863/2020 IN TDRC 1/2018 Exhibit P33 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTMENT OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 20.12.2022 IN TDRC 1/2018 Exhibit P34 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 8/2023 IN TDRC 1/2018 TO RECALL THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2022 IN TDRC 1/2018 Exhibit P35 TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF PROCEEDING DATED 24.1.2023 IN TDRC 1/2018 IN THE E DRT WEBSITE Exhibit P36 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DDATED 10.2.2020 IN MAT 916/2019 IN COT 55/2019 ISSUED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Exhibit P37 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.6.2020 IN SLP NO 5148- 5149/2020 OF THE HONOURBLE SUPREMECOURT OF INDIA. Exhibit P38 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. N 08/32/2022-DRT DATED 7.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT INVITING APPLICATION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF POST OF RECOVERY OFFICER IN DRTS. Exhibit P39 TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRAMME REPORT (SE-07) OF NATIONAL SEMINAR FOR PRESIDING OFFICERS OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL(DRT) PUBLISHED BY THE NATRIONAL JUIDICIAL ACADEMY Exhibit P40 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER DATED 17/3/2023 -2 DRT ERNAKULAM EXTRACTED FROM E DRT WEBSITE OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 52 2024:KER:95040 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9592/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE POWER ATTORNEY OF PETITIONER DATED 04.02.2021.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER DATED 10.04.2000. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 12.04.2000. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE LETTER OF HYPOTHECATION DATED 12.04.2000.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE AND CORRECT COY OF GUARANTEE AGREEMENT DATED 12.04.2000.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY GENERAL LETTER OF UNDERTAKING DATED 12.04.2000.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NUMBER 11/2002 FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF PETITIONERS FIRM. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 23.03.2007 OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BANGALORE IN OA 11/2002.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 23.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE DRT.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 6.9.2006 SEND BY THE BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.1.2015.

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 53 2024:KER:95040 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 12.05.2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 15.12.2014 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2).

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN IA 4396/2015 IN IR 3323/2015. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NUMBER 8641/2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI IN AIR 715/2018.

EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED FROM DRT ERNAKULAM.

OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 54 2024:KER:95040 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6793/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.229 OF 2018 DATED 12-01-2018 IN DRC NO.3947 IN O.A.NO.47 OF 2013 FILED BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 16-01-2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA NO.229/2018 IN DRC MP/3947 (OA NO.47/2013 FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM) EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-02-2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.229 OF 2018 IN DRC NO.3947 IN O.A.NO.47 OF 2013.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 06- 12-2017 PASSED IN W.A.NO.60 OF 2010.

OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 55 2024:KER:95040 APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 394/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND TO CERTIFICATE DEBTORS DATED 14.05.2012 ISSUED BY RECOVERY OFFICER Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE THROUGH E-SALE NO.72/2015 DATED 08.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DRT-I, ERNAKULAM IN DRC NO.3504 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO.289/2016 IN DRC NO.3504 (TDRC NO.723/2016) IN O.A NO.384/2004 BEFORE RECOVERY OFFICER, DRT- II, ERNAKULAM ALONG WITH THE NOTICE THEREIN Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE THROUGH E-SALE NO.88/2022 DATED 01.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DRT-I, ERNAKULAM IN TDRC NO.723/2016(DRC NO.3504) RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit-R(1)(a) True copy of the Order dated 17-1-2020 in Civil Appeal No.9931 of 2019 and 9932 of 2019 which was downloaded from the website of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO.4/2024 IN TDRC NO.723/2016(DRC NO.3504) IN O.A NO.384/2004 ON THE FILES OF RECOVERY OFFICER, DRT-II, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02.02.2024 IN EXT.P5 ISSUED TO PETITIONERS OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 56 2024:KER:95040 APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 517/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 21.01.2017 IN OA NO: 526/2014

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY CERTIFICATE DATED 24.04.2017 ISSUED IN DRC NO: 56/ 2017 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH ORDER OF APPOINTMENT BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER ISSUED IN DRC NO: 56/ 2017 Exhibit P4 . TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE DATED 06.11.2023 ISSUED BY RECOVERY OFFICER ISSUED IN DRC NO: 56/ 2017 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP(DRT) NO: 446/2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the final order dated 21.01.2017 in OA. No.526 of 2014,Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the recovery certificate DRC No.56 of 2017 in OA No.526 of 2014, Debts Recovery Tribunal – 1, Ernakulam Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the order dated 03.04.2023 in MA No.1 of 2023 in OA No. 526 of 2014 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the order dated 25.03.2021 in Civil Appeal Nos.468-469 of 2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Exhibit R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2020 IN SLP NOS. 9931-9932 OF 2019 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 57 2024:KER:95040 APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 446/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF RECOVERY NUMBERED AS DRC 4613 ISSUED BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AS PER ORDER DATED 9/12/2016 Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/04/2022 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IA NO. 26 OF 2022 IN DRC 4613 DATED 19/04/2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16/06/2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10/11/2022 DISMISSING EXT. P3 PETITION Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE DATED 22/09/2023

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court