Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shaikh Gulab Shaikh Ahmed and Ambadas Maruti Kale, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Aurangabad. The orders, made on Exhs. 117 and 127 in Recovery Proceeding No. 31/2007, confirmed a private sale of immovable property belonging to respondent No. 5, Deogiri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (the debtor), and delivered possession to the purchaser, respondent No. 6, Zambad Infrastructures. The petitioners sought a direction to sell the same property by public auction. The petition was filed against the State of Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Sugar, the Recovery Officer, the purchaser (International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, acting as trustee), the debtor, Zambad Infrastructures, and the Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Limited. The petitioners were not parties to the recovery proceedings. The court heard all sides, including interveners. The court noted that the Recovery Officer had confirmed the sale and delivered possession, and the petitioners had not challenged the sale before the DRT or any appellate authority. The court held that the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is discretionary and should not be exercised when an alternative remedy, such as a civil suit for damages, is available. The court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the Recovery Officer's orders. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioners to seek remedy in civil court if they had any grievance. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Alternative Remedy - The petitioners challenged the confirmation of private sale and delivery of possession by the Recovery Officer of DRT. The High Court held that once the sale is confirmed and possession is delivered, the remedy lies in a civil suit for damages, not in a writ petition. The court declined to interfere as the orders were not without jurisdiction or perverse. (Paras 1-10) B) Debt Recovery - Sale Confirmation - Private Sale - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Section 29 and Rule 57 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 - The Recovery Officer confirmed a private sale of the debtor's property. The court held that the sale was validly confirmed and possession delivered, and the petitioners, who were not parties to the recovery proceedings, could not challenge the sale in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 2-8) C) Civil Procedure - Alternative Remedy - Damages - The court observed that if the petitioners had any grievance regarding the sale, they could file a civil suit for damages. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge the orders of the Recovery Officer confirming a private sale and delivering possession of immovable property in recovery proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is discretionary
- not to be exercised when alternative remedy of civil suit is available
- Sale confirmed by Recovery Officer under DRT Act cannot be set aside in writ petition after possession delivered
- Private sale under DRT Act is valid if confirmed by Recovery Officer
- Interference in writ jurisdiction only if order is without jurisdiction or perverse
