IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BIHAR PATNA

Appeal Case No. 13 of 2014

IN
R. P. Case No. 89 of 2013
M/s Shri Mahavir Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Appellants

Versus
Syndicate Bank and Others

.Respondents
The humble reply on behalf of
the respondent No. 2, 3 4 and 5
above named;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH :1. That the answering respondent have paid the sale consideration pursuant to
the auction of the assets in question and therefore have been added as party
respondents in this appeal.
2. That the instant appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction of this Hon'ble tribunal.
3. That the instant appeal has been filed U/s 30 of the D.R.T. Act which is not
maintainable.

4. That the order under challenge i.e. dated 08.09.14 passed by

learned

Recovery officer is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble tribunal

U/s 30 of the D.R.T. Act but to Rule 61 of the Schedule II of the Income
Tax Act 1961.
5. That the appellant having not filed an application for setting aside the sale in
question under Rule 61 of the aforesaid rules and also having not explained
the cause behind not choosing to file such application before the learned
Recovery officer within the prescribed limitation has no locus to challenge
the impugned order in this jurisdiction of this Hon'ble tribunal.
6. That the relief prayed for in the instant appeal is further barred by the
doctrine of respondent judicata in light of the fact that the appellant never
challenged the order of the learned Recovery officer fixing sale of the assets
in question especially when the issues raised herein were available very
much to the appellant on 25.03.14, 08.05.14 and 04.08.14 when the learned
Recovery Officer had ordered auction of the mortgaged assets of the
appellant.
7. That it is further stated that the statements contained in para (v)(i) to (xxiv)
being issues of record require no comments.

8. That as against the statements contained in para (v)(xxv) it is stated that the
publication of sale notice in newspaper on 11.08.14 and non furnishing of
copy of publication before the learned Recovery Officer are directory
conditions stipulated in the order dated 04.08.14 and it is for the appellant to
establish as to how and in what manner the appellant has been prejudiced
which finds no place in the entire memo of appeal.
9. That the statements contained in para (v)(xxvi) to (xxix) are matter of record
and as such require no comments.
10.That as against the statements contained in para (v)(xxx) it is stated that the
issue raised by the appellant is misconceived and not available to be raised
at this stage because the order dated 30.06.14 passed by learned Recovery
officer would show that the appellant had simply raised a verbal objection
against valuation and had not seriously filed any objection in writing nor
brought any documents or materials to corroborate the issues raised in the
objection. However the learned Recovery Officer inspite of very causal
approach of the appellant would appear to have taken all necessary steps to
overcome any such lacuna likely to affect the sale proceedings and as such
the order dated 04.08.14 would indicate the respondent bank was directed to
clarify the govt. circle rate of the assets by 02.07.14.

11.That the order dated 02.07.14 would further show that the respondent bank
produced before the learned Recovery Officer the govt. circle rate on
02.07.14 which was duly verified by the learned Recovery Officer and
thereupon it was recorded in the order dated 02.07.14 that the reserve price
of the assets was more than the circle rate. Besides, the order of the learned
Recovery officer passed on 02.07.14 was the proper stage of the proceedings
when the appellant could have challenged the order in appeal U/s 30 of the
D.R.T. Act.
12. That since the order dated 02.07.14 till the order dated 08.09.14 it would
appear that the appellant has not filed any objection at any stage of the
proceedings regarding inadequate price fixation and improper valuation of
the assets etc. rather has chosen to wait and watch the exercise and
subsequently come out with objections to the sale proceedings.
13.That the statements contained in para (v)(xxxi) is misinterpretation of the
rates and guidelines contained in the schedule of rates annexed with the
memo of appeal. The land sold by the learned Recovery Officer is whether
residential or commercial cannot be decided by this Hon'ble tribunal in
appellate jurisdiction. The description of the land in question as adopted and
declared to be residential land by the valuer was already examined by the

learned Recovery officer and looking into every aspect of the matter the
reserve price was fixed and auction held.
14.That as against the statements contained in para (v)(xxxiii) and (xxxiii) in
the facts and circumstances of the case would appear to be misconceived and
baseless issues raised by the appellant just to let the sale confirmation to
remain in limbo.
15. That it is further stated that the appellant has not raised any issue relevant
and important so as to render the sale proceedings vitiated and unsustainable
in the eye of law. No irregularity so as to require interference of this Hon'ble
tribunal has been shown by the appellant and as such the appeal is liable to
be dismissed with cost.
16.That if at all the appellant claimed the assets under sale to be so valuable the
appellant either should have challenged the earlier passed by the learned
Recovery Officer fixing the auction sale of the assets or should have
challenged the valuation report but no such steps were ever taken which
itself demolishes the claim of the appellant in the instant appeal.
17.That the appellant has sought to challenge the sale proceedings on the basis
of flimsy grounds without any material in support of it. It is settled practice
in society that the market forces and usefulness of a land determine its rate

and not rates on paper records. It is further stated that any person may
assume the rate of any land or building for any highest possible figure but
the actual recoverable price varies on account of many factors. Besides the
appellant has not produced any sale deed of neighboring land assets in order
to set out an instance of gross irregularity having taken place while settling
the reserve price of the assts.
18.That besides it is further stated that the appellant is a defaulter and as would
appear from the records of the recovery proceedings the appellant has not
paid the loan dues of the respondent bank till date and therefore the sale in
question was necessitated which may not be allowed by this Hon'ble tribunal
to be disturbed at this stage especially when the appellant has not been able
to make out any case of interference and also having chosen a wrong
procedure and forum.
19.That the conduct of the appellant has attracted the application of doctrine of
respondent judicata and as such the appeal filed at this stage is not
maintainable in the eye of law.
20. That the answering respondents have deposited the entire sale consideration
well within the stipulated time and as such there is no default on part of the
answering respondents.

21.That it is further stated that the additional ground raise by the appellant in
supplementary petition is a technical objection and is of no avail in as much
as the issuance of sale certificate in favor of respondent no. 2 to 5 is merely
to facilitate the respondent purchaser namely Ask Vision Impex Pvt. Ltd. to
make payment of the huge amount of sale consideration and to avoid any
complication in future as regards the claim of rights of the parties. The
learned Recovery Officer has simply issued the certificate in joint names as
requested by the respondent purchaser company which is not prohibited
anywhere in the rules contained in Schedule II to the Income Tax Act 1961.
22.That besides it is only the respondent no. 2 whose interest may be affected
by such issuance of sale certificate in favor of other respondents together
with the respondent no. 2 who himself has made such a request, as such
there is no scope of any allegation of underhand dealing in the sale
proceedings. It is also relevant to state here that the said procedure adopted
by the learned Recovery Officer is simply to accommodate the purchaser
company who succeeded the auction to get proper documentation done of
the assets and its shares at later stage and there is nothing to gain in such
process.

23.That the appellant ha raised wild allegation without any instance of any
substantial injury caused and as such the appeal herein is liable to be
dismissed with heavy cost.
24. That it is further stated that the appellant has challenged the sale of Lot No.
B(ii) only on the basis of wrong valuation and fixation of reserve price
whereas the same valuer applying same standards and parameters of
valuation has determined the value of other lots under sale which has been
accepted by the learned Recovery Officer. As such there is no irregularity in
the sale proceedings and warrants no interference by this Hon'ble tribunal.
25.