SATPUDA TAPI PARISAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD Vs. I F C I LTD
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Pratibha Upasani, -
(1.) THIS appeal is sought to be filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th November, 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal - II Mumbai in Original Application No. 3546 of 2002. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application of the original applicants namely IFCI Limited, IDBI Limited and ICICI Bank Limited and ordered the defendant No. 1 namely M/s. Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as Karkhana) to pay to the applicant No. 1 IFCI Limited a sum of Rs. 60,50,36,648/- with interest on Rs. 57,58,48,802/- at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of filing of the original application till realization. The learned Presiding Officer also ordered the defendant No. 1 to pay to the applicant No. 2 IDBI Limited a sum of Rs. 60,77,57,361/- with intereest on Rs. 57,58,04,597/- at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of filing of the original application till full realization. The learned Presiding Officer also ordered the defendant No. 1 to pay applicant No. 3 ICICI Limited a sum of Rs. 29,25,23,177/- with interest at the rate of Rs. 20% per annum from the date of filing of the original application till full realization. He also passed certain consequential orders and gave certain direction to the defendant No. 2 also and directed issuance of recovery certificate in the above stated terms. Being aggrieved, the person appeal is sought to be filed.
(2.) Today, the application for waiver of pre-deposit which is mandatorily required to be made under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as RDB Act) is being argued.
I have heard Mr. Jaisinghani i/b Mr. B.V. Mahadik for the appellants and Ms. Rajani Iyer i/b M/s. Shaunak Satpute & Co. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. I have also gone through the proceedings and the application for waiver of deposit so also reply filed thereto.
(3.) THE impugned judgment and order reveals that though the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants herein) appeared in the matter, they did not file any written statement nor remained present. THE matter, therefore, proceeded ex parte against them and the impugned order came to be passed. Now before this Appellate Tribunal, in the application for waiver, contention is taken that the impugned order which is passed in the proceedings, is passed in the proceedings which are non est and nullity. THE reason given is that the appellant No. 1 is a co-operative society which is registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 of which the appellant No. 2 is the director and the alleged guarantor. It is contended that although notice is mandatorily required to be served on the Central Registrar under Section 101 of the said Act, no such notice was in fact served prior to institution of the proceedings and in the absence of such notice, the entire proceedings are nullity.
It is also contended that since the appellants are engaged in activities which serve the essential needs of farmers, labourers, etc. and since the appellants are non-profit making organization, they should be exempted from mandatory requirement of depositing the amount as per the Section 21 of the RDB Act and that complete waiver should be granted to them. In the affidavit of Mr. Subhash Patil, Chief Accountant of the appellant No. 1, a statement is made that the Karkhana is not in good financial position and, therefore, they are unable to deposit 75% of the decretal amount. Some balance sheets are also annexed to this affidavit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.