Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) In Dr.Tibrewala (supra) Mr. Rajadhyaksha invited our attention to the fact that under the RDDB Act the orders cannot be questioned in any Court of law other then by way of petition in the High Court and that the expression "prevent abuse of its process" would be wide enough to cover a case where a financial institution has obtained an order for recovery pursuant to a mortgage based on fraudulent documents and if such a party comes to Court and demonstrates that the mortgage created is sham or bogus, the tribunal can assume jurisdiction under Section 19(25) to decide that issue and for that purpose exercise powers conferred under section 22. In that case the petitioner contended that he was entitled to rectification of the order which allowed the original application and held the property to be validly mortgaged in favour of the respondent bank. The Recovery Officer issued a recovery certificate and the bank moved an application for enforcement of the recovery wp-997-2007.odt certificate allegedly without notice. It was contended that there was specific documentary evidence to show that the petitioners had legal title to the land in question. Therefore the property could not have been sold without notice to the petitioners. Since the DRT had declared the mortgage valid, the only remedy available to them was under section 19(25) of the RDDB Act, in the absence of any other specific provisions. The Bank opposed the challenge on the basis that they had a valid document in their favour and in those circumstances the application could not be entertained. The petitioner had raised an important issue as to which forum a person who is not a party to the proceeding before the DRT and whose property has been declared to be validly mortgaged could approach. The Court considered the fact that an appeal lies under the Act. Section 19(25) came in for consideration and the Division Bench found that the expression "prevent abuse of its process" and "or to secure the ends of justice" would be wide enough to cover a case where a financial institution had to obtain an order or a certificate pursuant to a mortgage created by the judgment debtor based on a fraudulent document. If such a party comes to Court and points out that the mortgage created is sham and/or bogus, the Tribunal can assume jurisdiction under section 19(25) to decide that issue and for that purpose exercise powers under section 22 of the Act. That in cases where the Recovery Officer cannot go beyond the certificate, a party like petitioners who claims title to the property moved the tribunal by wp-997-2007.odt invoking section 19(25) and if prima facie case is disclosed the tribunal is bound to consider the application and dispose it in accordance with law. That petition was then disposed by directing the tribunal to make application under Secyion 19(25).

30. That having been said we hasten to add that the view taken by the DRAT that a Miscellaneous Application can only be filed in proceedings pending before the tribunal does not commend to us as the correct view. This in view of the fact that a miscellaneous application is one that cannot fall within the definition of interim application or interlocutory application both of which are application which may be moved, canvassed and decided during the life time of a proceeding and not after its disposal. In other words interim applications and interlocutory applications are decided pending final resolution of the dispute whereas the miscellaneous application is one that pertain to any other aspect of the matter which includes an application for setting aside abatement and for setting aside ex-parte orders. To a limited extent a miscellaneous application may be filed in a pending proceeding but its scope is clearly different. In the case of Dr. Anil Nandkishor Tibrewala & Anr. Vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Ors. 1, the Division Bench of this court had 1 2006 (5) ALL MR 676 wp-997-2007.odt held that, section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, would facilitate making of an application where a financial institution had obtained an order or the certificate, pursuant to a mortgage created by a judgment debtor based on a fraudulent document; for instance, a mortgage in respect of the property not belonging to the judgment debtor but the third party alleging fraud. The court interpreted the expression "prevent abuse of its process" and "to secure the ends of justice".