High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Lalit Kumar Agrawal v. Recovery Officer Debt Recovery & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 35598 of 2002  RD-AH 29 (8 September 2002)
Court no. 1
Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 35598 of 2002
Lalit Kumar Agrawal . . . Vs. . . . Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-III Rajendra Place, New Delhi & others.
Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.
Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.
Indian Overseas Bank ( the Bank ) filed suit no. 549 of 1994 at Delhi for recovery of Rs.46,18,309/- along with interest and cost. During pendency of the suit Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT) came into existence and the suit was transferred to the DRT, New Delhi. This suit was decreed on 22.4.1997. The Bank filed an application for execution of the decree. During pendency of the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside order dated 22.4.1997 on the ground that this is exparte. This application was rejected on 26.11.1998. Thereafter the Recovery Officer also passed an order on 4.2.1999 directing the petitioner to file an affidavit for his assets. The petitioner did not appear and thereafter the Recovery Officer passed an order dated 26.4.1999 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why arrest warrant be not issued against him. The petitioner along with his wife filed writ petition no. 1578 of 1999 before Delhi High Court on 4.5.1999 and in this writ petition the petitioner obtained interim order staying arrest on payment of certain amount. Thereafter the writ petition was dismissed on 20.12.1999. After dismissal of the writ petition certain proceedings went on and thereafter Recovery Officer passed an order dated 8.7.2002 and notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to furnish copies of income tax returns of the last five years, bank account details etc. and also to show cause why he should not be arrested. Thereafter the order dated 17.7.2002 was passed for issuance of warrant of arrest of the petitioner, hence, the present writ petition.
We have heard counsel for the petitioner, Standing Counsel and Sri M.P. Sarraf for the respondents.
The suit for recovery was transferred to DRT New Delhi and the DRT decreed it on 22.4.1997. Thereafter petitioner's application to recall this order was dismissed on 26.11.1998 and the petitioner's writ petition filed against these two orders had been dismissed by Delhi High Court on 20.12.1999. The order dated 22.4.1997 as well as the order of Delhi High Court dated 20.12.1999 have become final.
The result is that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount mentioned in the decree granted by the DRT, New Delhi. The Recovery Officer has merely passed order for recovery of the amount. There is no illegality in the same. Earlier similar orders were passed on 4.2.1999 and 26.4.1999 and the petitioner had obtained interim order in the writ petition no. 1578 of 1999 filed before Delhi High Court. After dismissal of the writ petition the Recovery Officer again passed similar orders which have been stayed in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not given the details of the proceedings taken by him before Delhi High Court and has concealed material facts. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
This writ petition is dismissed with costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.