TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act") against the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Tribunal. below, whereby the I.A. No. 19 of 2022 filed by the respondents-borrowers in TSA No. 01 of 2021 has been allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1- company was granted various credit facilities, which was secured by personal guarantee of respondents no. 2 & 5 and also by collateral security of immovable properties of respondents no. 1 & 5. Since the borrowers did not maintain the financial discipline, therefore, the accounts were classified as NPA. The appellant-Bank filed an O.A. under section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 for recovery of Rs. 22,98,59,152/-, which was decreed vide judg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al below has granted the status quo in respect of the property in question, therefore, the Recovery Officer should not proceed for sale of the properties in question. The Recovery Officer vide order dated 23.12.2021 disposed off the . objection of the borrowers and ordered for issuance of notice for settling a sale proclamation, which was challenged by the borrowers by filing an I.A. No. 19 of 2022 in the pending T.S.A. No. 01 of 2021 stating therein that as both the proceedings are parallel to each other and the Recovery Officer has violated the order of status quo by directing the Bank to assist the Advocate Commissioner in taking steps for selling the properties in question and further prayed that the Recovery Officer be restrained from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It was further contended that despite the said objection, the Recovery Officer vide order dated 23.12.2021 disposed of the objection of the respondents and ordered for issuance of notice for proclamation of sale. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, an I.A. No. 19/2022 was filed in the pending S.A. 01/2021 before the Tribunal below alleging that both are parallel proceedings, but the Recovery Officer has violated the order of status and asked the Bank to assist the Advocate Commissioner for selling the properties in question. The said I.A. has been allowed vide order impugned directing the Recovery Officer to keep the orders for issuance of notice for proclamation of sale in abeyance till status quo is in operation. The learned counsel al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y aware of the consequence of the status quo order that it could not sell the properties without permission of the Tribunal below, but in spite of it the appellant-Bank filed an application before the Recovery Officer for selling the properties in question, which was against the order of status quo granted by the Tribunal below. It was also contended that section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, which is a later enactment, has an overriding effect over any other law, thus the order passed under the SARFAESI Act, would be an order within jurisdiction and would prevail over the RDDBFI Act proceeding in respect of the said properties, as the dominant purpose of both the enactments is of enforcement of dues of the Bank, therefore, the Recovery Officer w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orrowers and order for issuance of sale proclamation. The said order was challenged by the borrowers before the Tribunal below by filing and I. A. no. 19/2022 in its pending S.A. in spite of having alternative remedy. In this regard, section 30 of the RDB Act says as under :- "Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal." 10. It is clear from the contents of the above section that any person aggrieved by an order of the recovery officer made under this Act may prefer an app....