Decided on July 11,2014



Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) - (1.) ON 7th February, 2014 DRT -III. Delhi issued direction to the respondent Bank to take physical possession of the property in question i.e. land and building at place 23 Kaushambi Commercial Complex, Ghaziabad, U.P. preferably with in a period of 30 days from the date of the order. The Tribunal also provided police help to the Bank and SSP/DCP/SHO of the concerned Police Station were directed to provide necessary protection to the respondent Bank. What had prompted the Tribunal below to issue such direction was the conduct of the appellant in defying direction of the Tribunal below. The Tribunal, therefore, had further directed the Director of the company to appear in person.
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the appellant moved an application for recall of this order passed on 7th February, 2014. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 3rd March, 2014 found no reason to recall the order dated 7th February, 2014 and dismissed the said application as well. These two orders have been challenged in this appeal. Before this Tribunal, it was submitted that the appellant could not comply with the directions due to the fact that the Tribunal below had not quantified the overdue amount and hence the payment could not be made by the appellant. This Tribunal was not impressed with the line of submissions at all and accordingly asked the Counsel for the appellant to disclose the amount which as per the appellant was overdue. The Counsel appearing for the appellant at that stage had disclosed that the overdue amount was Rs. 54 lacs. On this basis, option was given to the appellant to deposit this overdue amount. In response, Counsel for the appellant had submitted that a sum of Rs. 24 lacs had already been deposited with the Bank which fact was not disputed by the Counsel appearing for the Bank. Thereafter, Counsel for the appellant made an offer that the appellant would deposit another sum of Rs. 15 lacs on that very date when the appeal was being heard i.e. 7th March, 2014. The Counsel handed over demand draft of Rs. 9 lacs to the Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank and undertook to deposit another demand draft of Rs. 6 lacs on the same day or at least on the following day. In addition, Counsel for the appellant further agreed to handover physical possession of the basement and 4th floor of the property in question. The appellant also undertook to bring perspective buyer for the property which may ultimately lead to discharge of the entire liability outstanding against the appellant. On this understanding, operation of the impugned order was stayed but was made subject to the condition that the respondent Bank would be at liberty to take physical possession of the basement as well as 4th floor of the property in question and that the appellant shall deposit further sum of Rs. 15 lacs with the Bank by 15th April, 2014. The appellant was told to bring a perspective buyer on or before 20th April, 2014 while staying operation of the order.
(3.) INSTEAD of complying with the direction as given by this Tribunal on 7th March, 2014 as noted above, the appellant moved an application for extension of time to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lacs which the appellant had failed to deposit as per directions issued on 7th March, 2014. This application came up for hearing on 20th April, 2014. Prayer made in the application was to extend the time to deposit the amount by 45 days. It was also stated that one person was interested in taking the property on rent and the appellant be permitted to give the property on rent so that the liability of the Bank is also discharged from the rent which would be received. The Counsel for the appellant was ready to deposit a cheque of Rs. 2 lacs on that very day and another cheque of Rs. 13 lacs which was dated 30th May, 2014.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.