Patanjali Yogapeeth Trust v. State Bank of India and Ors.

DRAT30 May 2022MISC APPEAL/83/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed a delay application filed by the borrower in default dismissal proceedings to restore the Section 14 suit. The court adjourned the current appeal by the auction purchaser, ordering an application for condonation of delay to be filed, and refused an ad interim stay on the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file application for condonation of delay and reply within four weeks; further hearing on 20.07.2022; interim stay denied.

Patanjali Yogapeeth Trust versus State Bank of India and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Misc. Appeal No.83/2022 Arising out of S.A. No.84/2017 (DRT-II, Delhi)

¶3

Patanjali Yogpeeth Vs.

¶4

State Bank of India & Ors.

¶5

30.05.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi

¶6

Present : Mr. Siddharth Arora, Ld. Counsel for the appellant

¶7

Mr. R.P. Vats, Ld. counsel for respondent no.1

¶8

Mr. B.S. Nagar, Ld. counsel for respondents 2 to 5

¶9

This matter has been taken up today through Video Conferencing.

¶10

This appeal has been filed by the auction purchaser against the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the DRT-II, Delhi, with the following prayers:-

¶11

“In view of the fact mentioned in Paragraph No.5 above, the Appellant prays for the following reliefs:-

¶12

(a) Pass an appropriate order thereby allowing the appeal of the Appellant and setting aside the impugned order dated 15.03.2022, passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Delhi, in S.A.. No.84/2017, titled as “Texplas Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.”, and consequently uphold the sale of the Secured Asset in favour of the Appellant;

¶13

(b) Pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶14

The learned DRT has passed the following order on 15.03.2022:-

¶15

“Present: Mr. B.S. Nagar, Ld. Counsel online appears for applicant. Mr. R.P. Vats, Ld. Counsel online appears for respondent bank.

¶16

Due to Covid 19 situation the matter is taken through VC.

¶17

This is an M.A filed for restoration of S.A. No. 84/2017 which was dismissed in default. Thereafter, NDN (M.A.) no 1126/2019 was moved on 25.11.2019 for restoration of the said S.A. which was listed on 20.01.2020 and thereafter, it was listed during COVID period and lastly on 05.05.2021 though compromise entered on

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

28.06.2019 which was not honoured but still the bank entered into fresh settlement into 15.05.2021 again.

¶20

In the S.A. status quo order was granted while this S.A. remained pending for restoration and the bank has chosen to enter into compromise for Rs.20.00 cores out of Rs.85.00 lacs was paid and balance of 25% to be paid within 90 days from the date of acceptance of the OTs. Thereafter, Rs.5.00 crores each to be paid in three quarterly instalments.

¶21

The Ld. Counsel for bank vehemently opposed the prayer mentioned by the applicant herein saying that since S.A. is not restored, the applicant cannot argue on the said S.A. So far as OTS is concerned, he submits that bank has given three chances to make payment but the same has not been done by them and the common cause taken by the borrower is due to Corona they are unable to make payment. No litigants should be condemned unheard. Since, S.A. was dismissed for non-prosecution and because there was Covid period of two years also fact that bank entered into compromise and lastly on 15.05.2021 I allowed this M.A. accordingly, S.A. is restored back to its original position along with revival of all the consequential orders therein which include status quo granted by this Tribunal.

¶22

S.A. No. 84/2017

¶23

The Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submits that they have received a bid in the matter and 15% is likely to come today. Since, I see a chance for settlement this matter I request the Ld. Counsel for respondent bank as bank has given three chances let this court give one chance to applicant to make payment to settle because the last instalment of the three quarterly instalments it would have been ending in May, 2022 only. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the DRT has got the power to extend the OTS with some compensation to Bank for the delay on case-to-case basis. I find that since the last date of payment is yet to arrive and the payment will be coming within May 2022, a chance be given.

¶24

The Ld. Counsel applicant submits that they are ready to pay Rs.1.00 crore within two days and another Rs.4.00 crores by 31.03.2022 and balance amount along with delayed period interest @ MCLR plus 2% compounded monthly from 16.06.2021.

¶25

Though, opposed by the Ld. Counsel for bank and submits that he has clear instruction they are not interested in the settlement of the dues. The applicant shall handover a cheque of Rs.1.00 crores dated 17.03.2022 and another cheque of Rs.4.00 crores dated 30.03.2022 and one more cheque dated 31.05.2022 for balance of OTS. The bank to intimate the applicant about interest as per their letter so that he clears the interest by 15.06.2022.

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

It is made clear that the bank shall not take balance 15% as there is status quo already revived. Bank shall not proceed with sale and the sale if any shall be subject to outcome of this SA. In case these cheques get bounced heavy cost will be imposed and contempt will be initiated.

¶28

Earlier MA i.e. NDN No. 1126/2019 which was not taken due to Covid dated already fixed for 05.05.2022 stand cancelled.

¶29

The matter be listed on 04.04.2022 for further proceedings.

¶30

The parties may download the order from the official web-site which will be treated as a true copy as due to COVID 19 & staff constraints, the certified copies cannot be issued as of now till further orders.”

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for interim relief.

¶32

The learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 submits that this appeal is time-barred as it has been filed on 25.05.2022 against the impugned order dated 15.03.2022.

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant states that in the S.A. appellant being auction purchaser was not a party to the S.A and the appellant was not aware of the order passed by the DRT and as soon as it came to know of the order, it filed the reply without any further delay.

¶34

Prima facie there is delay in filing the appeal. There is no application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the appellant states that there is no delay. Let an application be first filed giving reasons as to why there is no delay. Let reply to the application, if filed by the auction purchaser, be filed within four weeks by the respondents and thereafter rejoinder be filed within two weeks.

¶35

At this stage, no grounds for ad interim stay of the impugned order are made out.

¶36

List the matter on 20.07.2022 for further proceedings.

¶37

( CHAIRPERSON )

¶38

-pk

Patanjali Yogapeeth Trust v. State Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patanjali Yogapeeth Trust v. State Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Presidium Education and Charitable Trust versus Hdfc Bank

Ms Geeta Chaudhary versus Canara Bank and Ors.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S Full Fashion Apparels and Ors.

Smt Rajo Devi versus Canara Bank and Ors.

M/S Nishiland Park Ltd. versus Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Ltd.

Sushil Kumar Jolly versus Cholmandalam Investment and Fin