The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i) issue an appropriate order or direction commanding the recovery officer/Debt Recovery Tribunal to issue a certified copy of the entire proceedings dated 21.07.2008, as is seen in Ext.P2, within stipulated time limits in the interest of justice.
AND ii) to pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant.”
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the first and additional 4th respondent/V.S. Ramkrishan.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the property of the petitioner having an extent of about 28.18 acres, which is having a very high market value, was sold for throw- away price of Rs.4.895 crores and that the petitioner had already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal for setting aside the sale, which however did not turn to be fruitful. Hence the matter O.P.(DRT)No.63 OF 2014 2 was taken up before the DRAT, Chennai, where the matter is pending. So as to mould the case of the petitioner in a more effective manner, irregularities in the sale proceedings are sought to be highlighted.
4. Though the proceedings actually did not intend to include the plant and machinery in the sale proceedings as reflected from Ext.P2, the sale took place also in respect of plant and machinery. The petitioner sought for a copy of the relevant proceedings . But, when the same was supplied as per Ext.P3, the relevant portion as contained in Ext.P2 to the effect that the 'plant and machinery is not included for the time being'
came to be omitted. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Original Petition for a proper copy of the relevant proceedings.
5. The first respondent/DRT has filed a counter affidavit.
The learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that in response to Ext.R1(a) application preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a certified copy of the relevant proceedings, the same was considered and Ext.R1(b) came to be issued clearly mentioning that reserve price was fixed with separate note on O.P.(DRT)No.63 OF 2014 3 file and a copy of the relevant Note in this regard is produced as Ext.R1(c). The factual particulars have been sought to be asserted with reference to Ext.R1(d) as well, showing the reserve price fixed in respect of different items concerned. The learned Counsel further submits that non-inclusion of the fact with reference to plant and machinery, as given in Ext.P2, while issuing Et.P3 was only an inadvertent omission and that the concerned respondent is ready to issue a proper certified copy including the above particulars as well.
In the said circumstance, the Original Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent/DRT to issue a proper certified copy of the documents sought for by the petitioner showing the vital particulars in respect of the property concerned, as discernible from Ext.P2, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk