RAKESH KUMAR GARG,J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 7.3.2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi whereby his application for directing the respondent-Bank to settle the matter by accepting Rs. 4.75 crores and to stay all the proceedings conducted by the respondent-Bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Securitisation Act") has been rejected; with a further prayer for the issuance of a direction to the respondent-Bank to comply with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and further restraining the respondents not to create any kind of lien over the property of the company for sale under the provisions of the Securitization Act.
(2.) THE petitioner-company availed of certain loan and credit facilities from the respondent-Bank. As it failed to meet its financial obligation of repayment as per the agreement, the respondent-Bank filed O.A. No. 292/2004 for the recovery of more than Rs. 9 crores along with the pendente lite and future interest before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. During the pendency of the O.A., the Bank also initiated action under the Securitization Act. The petitioner moved S.A. No. 2/2007 under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Securitization Act being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bank. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the Bank published sale notice in the newspaper fixing 5.3.2007 for the auction of the mortgaged property. The petitioner-company preferred I.A. No. 71/2007 in S.A. No. 2/2007 and L.A. No. 58/2007 in O.A. No. 292/2004 seeking the following reliefs : "(i) that the respondent Bank be directed to settle the matter by accepting Rs. 4.75 Crores; (ii) to stay of proceedings conducted by the respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002; (iii) to safeguard the interest of the patients who are obtaining regular medical assistance from the applicant." The Debts Recovery Tribunal vide its order dated 21.2.2007 disposed of these two applications as under : "For the reasons discussed hereinabove, I am of the view that it would not be expedient in the interest of justice that recovery proceedings are stalled by this Tribunal for any reason. The Bank is entitled to recover the public money. The proposed auction is therefore, allowed to take place on the schedule date, time and place. However, it will be the responsibility of the bank to ensure that until take over the assets of the company by the prospective buyer, activities of the hospital keep on going as usual. With these directions, I.A. No. 71/07 in S.A. No. 02/07 and I.A. No. 58/07 in the S.A. No. 02/07 and I.A. No. 58/07 in O.A. 292/04, are hereby disposed off". The petitioner-company preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 31/2007 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The said appeal was finally disposed of vide order dated 12.4.2007 as under : "Accordingly, the respondent-Bank is directed to settle the dispute on the lines of Reserve Bank of India guidelines applicable at the relevant time and accept one-time settlement offered by the appellants. The Reserve Bank of India guidelines for one-time settlement envisages a pre-deposit of 25% of the NPA amount. Since the appellants have deposited a sum of Rs. 1 Crore as per the direction of this Tribunal, dated 22.2.2007, this would approximately meet the requirement of pre-deposit envisaged under the RBI guidelines for one-time settlement. The appellants shall approach the respondent-Bank with an offer on the basis of RBI guidelines applicable at the time of declaring the account of the appellants as NPA, and, thereafter, the concerned officials of the respondent-Bank shall call the appellants for further discussion, if necessary, and settle the matter accordingly. It is desired that the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order. In the result, the appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs." It was also ordered that till the appropriate decision is taken by the respondent-Bank on one time settlement, no coercive steps against the petitioner will be taken up.
(3.) THE respondent Bank vide its communication dated 12.7.2007 (Annexure P-11) communicated to the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is not covered under any of the Reserve Bank of India guidelines for one-time settlement of NPA account. The petitioner challenged the decision dated 12.7.2007 of the respondent Bank before this Court vide C.W.P. No. 11397 of 2007. The principal ground urged by the petitioner was that the decision dated 12.7.2007 was in flagrant violation of the directions issued vide order dated 12.4.2007 of the Appellate Tribunal. However, this Court vide its order dated 30.7.2007 did not interfere in the matter and the petitioner was relegated to the remedy of filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner moved Miscellaneous Application No. 203/2007 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi seeking the following relief : "(i) issue a direction quashing decision dated 12.7.2007 (Annexure P-2); wherein the bank has rejected the case of the Applicant/Appellants without any legal right or authority; (ii) issue a direction quashing all the proceedings of the Bank being conducted under the Securitization Act; (iii) issue a direction to the respondents to accept the "One Time Settlement" proposed and amount offered by the Applicant/Appellant and settle the whole loan case of the applicant/Appellant as such." ;