Summary
A security agency appointed during debt recovery obtained an MSME award against the bank despite earlier accepted tribunal orders placing continuing charges on auction purchasers. The Court held those orders binding and the Council without jurisdiction in these circumstances, setting the award aside and permitting recovery and withdrawal of deposited funds.
Issues
- Whether the agency could bypass accepted DRT orders through MSME proceedings against the bank.
- Who bore continuing security charges and how deposited or withdrawn sums should be addressed.
Held
- The agency had not challenged the DRT order of24July2008 and had sought its enforcement against auction purchasers. Its acquiescence and subsequent proceedings made the orders binding; the High Court could not disregard them as non est in this case. (¶ 8–11)
- The dispute had been lawfully pursued before DRT, its Recovery Officer and DRAT. In these circumstances, especially after acceptance and implementation of their orders, the MSME Facilitation Council lacked jurisdiction to entertain the agency’s application. (¶ 12–13)
- Security after delivery of possession was for the auction purchasers’ benefit. For the operative relief, the bank’s recovery was subject to adjustment of amounts due up to24July2008, while the agency retained liberty to claim later charges against the purchasers. (¶¶ 10, 14–15)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; High Court judgment and Council award set aside. Bank permitted to recoverRs1,22,00,000 withdrawn by the agency after adjusting dues up to24July2008, and to withdraw the remaining court deposit with accrued interest. Agency may pursue later charges against auction purchasers in accordance with law.