Exclusive recovery forum bars Company Court challenge to auction sale; remedy lies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

A special recovery statute that vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Recovery Officer also provides the only appellate route for challenging an auction or confirmation of sale. Association of the Official Liquidator in the sale process protects the interests of the company, creditors and workmen, but it does not create a parallel remedy before the Company Court to annul a sale confirmed under that statute. The Company Court's role under the Companies Act does not displace the statutory recovery framework. The proper challenge lay by appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, not by proceedings in the Company Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Official Liquidator could invoke the jurisdiction of the Company Court to set aside an auction or confirmation of sale conducted by the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, or whether the remedy lay only by appeal under that Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Recovery Officer for adjudication and recovery of bank dues, and provides a complete mechanism for challenge to orders of the Recovery Officer. The Act contains an overriding provision, and the recovery process, including sale and challenge to sale, is codified through the statutory appeal structure. Although the Official Liquidator must be associated with the sale proceedings so that the interests of the company, creditors, and workmen are protected, that association does not create a parallel remedy before the Company Court to annul a sale confirmed under the special statute. The Company Court's role under the Companies Act, 1956 does not displace the exclusive forum and appellate remedy created by the special enactment.

Conclusion: The Official Liquidator could not approach the Company Court to set aside the auction or confirmation of sale; the proper remedy was to challenge the Recovery Officer's action by appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the special statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special recovery statute provides an exclusive adjudicatory and appellate mechanism, a challenge to an auction or sale confirmed by the Recovery Officer must be pursued within that statutory framework and not before the Company Court, even though the Official Liquidator is required to be associated with the sale process.

---