1 2025:CGHC:59218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1259 of 2025 1 - M/s Kharra Construction Company Through Its Proprietor- Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Tehsil- Odgi, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Nohar Prasad Gupta Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Kharra, Panika Para, Post And Tehsil- Odgi, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Manju Gupta W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kharra, Panika Para, Post And Tehsil- Odgi, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bank Of Baroda Through Its Authorised Officers, Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Recovery Officer Ii Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, 797-Ii Shanikunj, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur 482001 (M.P.) 3 - The Collector District Surguja, Collectorate Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Tahsil- Odgi, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Amit Buxy, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Ankit Singhal, Advocate For Respondent / State Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. 2 ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 05/12/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This petition has been filed seeking following relief(s) - “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur to stay the current proceeding before the Recovery Officer in RC/86/2023, in the interest of justice and no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners in the meanwhile. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act of 1993’) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short ‘Tribunal’). The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte before the learned Tribunal and the judgment dated 28/12/2022 was passed whereby the petitioners jointly and severally were directed to pay Rs.25,28,886/- with pendentelite future interest @ 12% p.a. simple from the date of filing of the Original Application No.1340/90 (RC 86/2023), i.e. 31/07/19 with cost till its realisation. The Tribunal further observed that the recovery certificate be issued under Section 19 (22) of the Act of 1993. Thereafter, respondent No.2 started executing proceedings and issued recovery certificate which is impugned herein as Annexure P/1 and in all possibility, the secured assets may be attached. He submits that the petitioner is a resident of Ambikapur whereas the publication of notice of application before the Tribunal was made at Raipur. Therefore, no proper notice was served upon the petitioner. He submits that as the DRAT is not functional, the petitioner had to approach this Court. Therefore, he prays that the relief as claimed may be granted. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy either to file an application for setting aside ex-parte judgment or filing appeal against order of recovery before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Even the recovery certificate issued by the Recovery Officer/ respondent 3 no.2 can be challenged by way of an appeal before the DRAT under Section 30 of the Act of 1993. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and ors. (2010) 8 SCC 110 to contend that when there is availability of alternative remedy, the writ Court should not entertain such petitions. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the dispute is between the petitioner and the bank. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners obtained credit facility from respondent No.1. It is also not disputed that the judgment dated 28/12/2022 was passed by the DRT, Jabalpur. It is also not in dispute that against judgment passed by the DRT, the petitioner has neither challenged the same before DRAT or filed any application for setting aside the same. Section 30 of the Act of 1993 is quoted herein below- “30. 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. (2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under sections 25 to 28 (both inclusive).” Learned counsel for the respondent at this stage submits that some breathing time may be granted and till then, some interim relief may also be granted. This Court is not impressed with the submission made herein in view of availability of alternative remedy and also considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satyawati Tondon (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail alternative remedy against the impugned recovery certificate or judgment passed by the DRT. Certified copy of the annexures be returned to the petitioner after attaining duly attested photo copy 4 of the same. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.12.10 11:12:25 +0530