Final recovery orders barred reopening of commissioner charges, and the MSMEDF Council award could not override settled liability.

Where liability for commissioner/security charges had already been shifted in final recovery proceedings and the parties acted on that determination, the bank's obligation could not continue beyond handover of possession to the auction purchasers. The Court held that the later challenge to the Recovery Officer and DRT orders could not be treated as jurisdictionally void, because the parties had accepted and relied on the final order. It further held that the MSMEDF Council could not reopen a liability already settled in DRT/DRAT proceedings. The Council's award, and the judgments affirming it, were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant bank remained liable to pay security charges to the court commissioner after the property was handed over to the auction purchasers and the earlier DRT order had attained finality; (ii) whether the DRT lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the Recovery Officer's order and whether the later order was non est; (iii) whether the MSMEDF Council had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's claim after the matter had been dealt with by the DRT and DRAT; (iv) whether the award of the MSMEDF Council, as affirmed by the District Court and High Court, was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant bank remained liable to pay security charges to the court commissioner after the property was handed over to the auction purchasers and the earlier DRT order had attained finality.

Analysis: The property was handed over to the auction purchasers on 13.11.2006 and the auction purchasers undertook to bear the expenses for protecting their possession. The Recovery Officer later recorded that the respondent's status as court commissioner had ceased from 13.11.2006 and that the services thereafter were rendered for and on behalf of the auction purchasers. The DRT order dated 24.07.2008, which directed recovery of charges from the auction purchasers from 08.05.2007, had not been challenged by the respondent and was acted upon by the parties. On that factual and procedural basis, the bank's obligation could not continue beyond the relevant date.

Conclusion: The appellant bank was not liable to pay the respondent's security charges after 24.07.2008, and in substance not after the handover of possession to the auction purchasers.

Issue (ii): Whether the DRT lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the Recovery Officer's order and whether the later order was non est.

Analysis: The subsequent proceedings showed that the parties, including the respondent, accepted and acted upon the DRT's order dated 24.07.2008. Once that order had been relied upon in later proceedings, the High Court could not disregard it on the premise that the DRT had no jurisdiction. The finding that the DRT's order was non est was inconsistent with the conduct of the parties and the subsequent orders passed in the recovery proceedings.

Conclusion: The High Court's view on lack of jurisdiction of the DRT and the supposed non est character of the order dated 24.07.2008 was unsustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the MSMEDF Council had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's claim after the matter had been dealt with by the DRT and DRAT.

Analysis: The dispute had already been carried through proceedings before the DRT and DRAT under the recovery framework, and those proceedings culminated in binding orders governing liability for the commissioner charges. In that setting, the MSMEDF Council could not reopen or override the settled position, particularly when the respondent had accepted and acted upon the earlier DRT order. The statutory mechanism under the MSMED framework could not be invoked to displace the finality of the earlier adjudication in the recovery proceedings.

Conclusion: The MSMEDF Council had no jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's claim in the facts of the case.

Issue (iv): Whether the award of the MSMEDF Council, as affirmed by the District Court and High Court, was sustainable.

Analysis: The award proceeded without proper regard to the earlier binding orders of the DRT and Recovery Officer, and the High Court failed to examine those prior determinations and the effect of the respondent's acceptance of them. Since the liability for charges had already been shifted to the auction purchasers and the MSMEDF Council lacked jurisdiction, the award could not stand. The consequential affirmance by the District Court and High Court was therefore flawed.

Conclusion: The award of the MSMEDF Council, and the judgments affirming it, were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded in getting the adverse award and the impugned judgment set aside, and the respondent was left to pursue any post-24.07.2008 claim only against the auction purchasers in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where earlier proceedings have finally determined liability and the parties have accepted and acted upon that determination, a later forum cannot reopen the same liability, and a claim contrary to such final orders is not maintainable.

---