- (1.) The petitioner before us has tried every trick of the trade and outside the trade to delay recovery proceedings on having defaulted in repayment of loan! The present proceeding is one more in this direction. The petitioner, as borrower, failed to adhere to the financial discipline resulting in recovery proceedings being initiated by the Central Bank of India, the lending bank, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh as OA No. 680 of 2002 for recovering a sum of Rs. 4,62,68,716.97/- alongwith interest and costs. In the meantime, in view of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFESI Act) having come into force, recourse to the provisions of Section 13 of the said Act was taken by the bank. Post issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the said Act, objections being filed and the notice being issued under Section 13(4) of the said Act, the petitioner filed S.A. No. 112 of 2010 under Section 17 of the said Act.
(2.) In the SA, on 18.11.2009, after hearing both the parties, it was directed that "there shall be a stay of all further proceedings of the 1st respondent under the provisions of the SARFESI Act till further orders". The reference to respondent No. 1 was to the authorized officer, Central Bank of India.
(3.) It appears that the Central Bank of India exasperated by the lapse of period of time in which no recovery was made against the petitioner took a conscious business decision to assign its debts under the assignment agreement dated 29.03.2011. The SA and OA were both consolidated, as appears from the order dated 22.07.2011, from which the dispute in question starts. The petitioner alleged that the assignment deed was in violation of the order dated 18.11.2009 and filed I.A. No. 307 of 2011 in SA for action against persons and properties of persons who are guilty of disobedience of the orders of the Tribunal. Another application was filed by the International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited (in short IARC Limited) in view of the assignment in its favour by the Central Bank of India seeking to step into the shoes of the bank. The petitioner also filed another application in the OA seeking dismissal of the same (where even a counter-claim had been filed) in view of the assignment of the debt without leave of the Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application of the IARC Limited in view of no assignment deed having been placed on record.;