Allowed

Charan Singh Khangarot v. Punjab National Bank

DRT21 Jun 2023SA/152/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application, the tribunal quashed the bank's recovery proceedings against the applicant guarantor. The court ruled that the applicant had deposited the full agreed sum, necessitating the release of mortgaged property documents. The judgment also highlighted the bank's arbitrary failure to pursue other guarantors and quashed proceedings due to an NCLT order mandating a settlemen

What did the court decide?

Proceedings initiated against the applicant were quashed and set aside. The Authorized Officer was directed to deposit original title deeds of four immovable properties with the Tribunal Registrar.

Charan Singh Khangarot versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SA No.- 152/2022

¶5

Charan Singh Khangarot, S/o Shri Mukut Singh Khangarot, , Resident of

¶6

M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶7

.........Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Punjab National Bank Having its Branch Office at MID Corporate Center, Jaipur 1, PNB House, Nehru Place, Jaipur through its authorized officer.

¶10

........Respondent Bank

¶11

Present:-

¶12

Shri Bhrigu Sharma, Counsel for the applicant

¶13

Shri Vikas Jain, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶14

(Final Order) (21.06.2023)

¶15

This Securitization Application was filed by the applicant on 21.03.2022 in the capacity of guarantor being aggrieved by the actions initiated by the respondent bank.

¶16

On 23.03.2022 Sh. Vikas Jain filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent bank and sought time to file reply, on 24.03.2022 objections with regard to maintainability of the SA was to be decided and the respondent bank was directed to file reply on 02.04.2022.

¶17

On 02.04.2022 reply was not filed, and Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank preferred to argue on the ground of maintainability of this SA and took preliminary objections. Vide order dated 13.04.2022 a detailed order was passed and SA was found maintainable.

¶18

¶19

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶20

¶21

The respondent bank filed an IA no. 708/2022 with a prayer to review/ recall the order dated 13.04.2022, arguments on the said IA was heard on 13.05.2022 and finally vide order dated 18.05.2022 Authorized Officer Sh. Mangesh Kumar was directed to file his submissions by way of an affidavit without seeking adjournment because the said authorized officer used certain language which was contemptuous and affidavit was filed by Sh. Mangesh Kumar, Authorized officer on 20.05.2022, in which the authorized officer tendered unconditional apology, therefore, affidavit filed by him was considered and vide order dated 25.05.2022 IA no. 708/2022 was disposed of and the respondent bank was directed to hold their hands with regard to properties of SA applicant only till the disposal of IA no. 825/2022.

¶22

Vide order dated 18.06.2022 an IA no. 905/2022 filed by the respondent bank was disposed of and the objections taken by the respondent bank that the SA applicant has already sold out the mortgaged plots to some third party whereas the plots were mortgaged with the bank and so SA is required to be dismissed, was dismissed.

¶23

Vide order dated 14.07.2022 the respondent bank was directed to file updated statement of account as it was claimed by SA applicant, that they have deposited entire amount as demanded by the bank and it was also objected by Ld. counsel for the applicant that the respondent bank is not taking any action with regard to another guarantor Ms. Vashudhara Gupta and Ms. Manjula Rani and the respondent bank has also initiated proceedings before the NCLT, Jaipur against the Corporate debtor M/s Aestetic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd.

¶24

It is important to mention here that in the present matter on 24.06.2022 NCLT, Jaipur passed an order and the said order was detailed in order dated 01.08.2022. Perusal of said order goes to show that the bank and corporate debtor entered into a settlement and so, the respondent bank was directed to comply with the directions issued

¶25

¶26

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶27

¶28

on 01.08.2022 with regard to proceedings pending before the NCLT, Jaipur.

¶29

An affidavit was filed by the respondent bank and in the meanwhile the respondent bank approached to Hon’ble DRAT, New Delhi. Sh. Hemant Kumar Goyal, Zonal Head, Sastra Punjab National Bank was also directed to remain present during the hearing of the SA on account clarification of any quarry. Affidavit was filed by Sh. Hemant Kumar Goyal on 13.10.2022.

¶30

On 06.12.2022 Ld. counsel for the applicant filed copy of order dated 22.10.2021 passed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in SB Civil Writ Petition no. 11076/2021 filed by Ms. Manjula Rani and Ms. Vashundhara Gupta against the respondent bank being another guarantor and vide order dated 06.12.2022 the matter was adjourned to 06.02.2023 as the matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble NCLT also.

¶31

10.On 28.02.2023 Sh. Vivek Mehla Law officer appeared on behalf of the respondent bank and submitted that Misc. Appeal filed by the respondent bank before the Hon’ble DRAT, New Delhi being aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by this Tribunal, was disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2023 and this Tribunal was directed to dispose this SA as expeditiously as possible within a period of 3 months.

¶32

During the February, 2023 Lawyers was not appearing on account of continuous strike and the matter was adjourned to 13.03.2023 for final arguments.

¶33

12.On 13.03.2023 Lawyers remain absent from judicial work so, the matter was adjourned to 22.03.2023 and on 22.03.2023 this Tribunal was on official tour, on 30.03.2022 the matter could be heard due to paucity of time.

¶34

The matter was finally heard on 26.04.2022 and it was fixed on 10.05.2023 for final order but order was not ready on account of

¶35

¶36

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶37

¶38

certain quarries. Vide order dated 17.05.2023 the respondent bank was directed to file an affidavit on total 5 counts given in the order dated 17.05.2023 which are reproduced here as under:-

¶39

1. In the light of order of Hon’ble NCLT Jaipur dated 24.06.2022 still the respondent bank wants to proceed ahead as per law for recovery of outstanding amount against present SA applicant, if yes, under what provisions?

¶40

2. If still the respondent bank wants to proceed ahead for recovery of outstanding amount, then whey they have entered into settlement vide letter dated 18.07.2022?

¶41

3. Why the fact of settlement of account was not brought before this Tribunal by the Respondent Bank in affidavit filed on 01.08.2022?

¶42

4. Also to inform about status of withdrawal of CIRP as mentioned at Sr. No.1 of the settlement letter at 18.07.2022.

¶43

5. To decide the prayer of appointment of Court Commissioner is kept pending till further orders.

¶44

14.Part of affidavit was filed on 19.05.2023 and remaining affidavit was filed by the respondent bank on 29.05.2023. From the affidavit filed by Mr. Birbal Meena, Zonal Sastra Centre, Punjab National Bank, Jaipur, it is clear that the present SA applicant is guarantor of M/s Aesthetic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd. and in housing loan account of Dipendra Singh. Details of three loan accounts were given and status of applicant in first two accounts is guarantor and in the third account is of borrower.

¶45

15.The SA applicant moved an IA no. 825/2022 on 13.05.2023 and the said interim application is important because facts as mentioned in the said IA are required due consideration.

¶46

16.In Para 3 of the IA, it is admitted by SA applicant that total 5 plots as detailed in Para 3 of the IA were mortgaged by the SA applicant as borrower company M/s Aesthetic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd. availed the credit facility of Rs. 1.50 Cr and bank guarantee limit facility to the tune of Rs. 2.00 Cr.

¶47

¶48

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶49

¶50

17.It is claimed that in the demand notice the respondent bank has claimed amount due to the bank as on 31.03.2020 is Rs. 2,07,35,144/along with future interest and in Para 7 it is admitted that the applicant regularly approached to the respondent bank, various communications took place, the applicant sought details of amount claimed and submission of release of mortgaged property on account of personal guarantee given by him to the credit facility sanctioned in favor of M/s Aesthetic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd.. The applicant wrote a letter on 21.12.2020 addressed to the respondent bank, copy of which filed at Annexure-C/1.

¶51

18.Ld. counsel for the applicant submitted that through this letter on 21.12.2020 the applicant requested to the respondent bank to release total 4 plots as detailed in this applications against deposit of amount of Rs.1,22,60,000/- in the form of FDR as security and the respondent bank vide letter dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure C/2) directed to SA applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 122.60 Lacs at the earliest so that four immovable properties can be released.

¶52

19.In the letter dated 24.12.2020 the proposal of SA applicant, as mentioned as per terms & conditions in Para 2 it was mentioned that even after proposed release of 4 immovable properties in the name of guarantor Shri Charan Singh Khangarot, liability of Sh. Charan Singh Khangarot shall be continued in the account of M/s Aesthetic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd., in the capacity of guarantor till liquidation of entire dues/ adjustment of account.

¶53

20.In Para 3 of the said letter issued by Assistant General Manager, of the respondent bank, it is again clarify that bank’s charges on 4 IPs in the name of guarantor Sh. Charan Singh Khangarot, will be released after receipt of full offer amount of Rs. 122.60 Lacs, and property documents of immovable properties, shall also be handed over after receipt of full amount.

¶54

¶55

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶56

¶57

21.In Para 4 it was also mentioned by the respondent bank that release of IPs is specific and in no manner it should be considered/ treated as discharge of guarantor’s personal guarantee given in the loan account until unless if the amount received against the release of these IPs does cover the full outstanding amount in the said loan account.

¶58

22.Ld. counsel for the applicant pressed upon the fact that on the proposal of the SA applicant given by him through letter dated 21.12.2020 the respondent bank agreed to release four immovable properties vide letter dated 24.1202020 subject to condition that the SA applicant will deposit an amount of Rs. 122.60 Lacs.

¶59

23.Ld. counsel for the applicant fairly submitted that as the applicant failed to deposit the said amount as per letter dated 24.12.2020 issued by the Respondent bank, vide order dated 21.01.2021 the respondent bank informed him that the terms & conditions of letter dated 24.12.2020 stands cancelled automatically without further communications and so, he on 22.01.2021 gave a letter with a request of extension of time line for deposit of Rs. 122.60 Lacs. Demand Notice (Annexure C/5) issued on 10.02.2021 and again on 25.05.2021 the SA applicant wrote a letter for release of mortgaged properties and personal guarantee.

¶60

Against the agreed amount of Rs. 122.60 Lacs, he transferred Rs. 25.00 Lacs on 27.01.2021 and further arranged an amount of Rs. 97.60 Lacs, he approached to the respondent bank with a DD of Rs. 95.00 Lcas, further to make a payment of Rs. 2.60 Lacs through RTGS but no information from the respondent bank was given by the respondent bank.

¶61

25.Ld. counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 97.60 Lacs on 25.02.2021, an amount of Rs. 25.00 Lacs as discussed herein above was already deposited so, entire amount of Rs. 122.60 Lacs in the light of letter dated 21.11.2021 was deposited within approx 1 month time i.e. 25.02.2021 and so the applicant

¶62

¶63

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶64

¶65

requested to the respondent bank that amount of actual liability stands deposited by the SA applicant and so he prayed that the respondent bank may withdraw the demand notice dated 10.02.2021 issued against him.

¶66

26.To counter above said grounds Ld. counsel for the respondent bank submitted that on 01.03.2021 through letter (Annexure C-7), Zonal Head of Sastra, PNB informed that as the applicant failed to deposit the amount in the light of letter dated 21.11.2021, therefore, their proposal with regard to release of immovable property stands cancelled and the bank was under process of taking actions under the provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002.

¶67

27.Ld. counsel for the respondent bank submitted that in the letter dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure C/3) issued by the respondent bank, no time line was fixed to deposit an amount of Rs. 122.60 Lacs. The respondent bank, failed to consider this fact the applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 25.00 Lacs, but bank issued a letter on 21.01.2021for cancellation of terms & conditions of letter dated 24.12.2020.

¶68

28.Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that against the amount of Rs. 122.60 Lacs an amount of Rs. 25.00 Lacs was deposited on 07.01.2021 and the applicant took all out efforts but the respondent bank after receiving the entire amount, refused to accept the terms & conditions of their letter dated 24.12.2020.

¶69

It was also alleged by Ld. counsel for the applicant that the respondent bank directed the SA applicant to deposit the amount of Rs. 122.60 Lacs and undertook to release the four immovable properties, so SA applicant deposited the said amount within 45 days time but after receiving the said amount and after receiving an amount of Rs. 27.00 Lacs extra, the respondent bank refused to release the property papers of four plots and it was alleged by Ld. counsel for the applicant that the authorized officer of the respondent bank is in hand in gloves with the company and a other guarantor because they have issued

¶70

¶71

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶72

¶73

letter on 11.05.2021 (Annexure P-17), on 18.05.2021(Annexure P-18), on 25.05.2021 (Annexure P-19), on 21.03.2022 to Ms. Vasundhara Gupta for depositing remaining due amount of Rs. 9036248/- only but in fact they failed to take any proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002 despite the fact that there was no stay to the proceedings and the authorized officer of the respondent bank as well as the Zonal Head Sastara were pressing hard upon the SA applicant mainly on the ground that he is required to repay the entire outstanding amount.

¶74

29.From the facts so gathered, it is clear that the respondent bank has already initiated proceedings against M/s Aesthic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd. before Hon’ble NCLT.

¶75

30.From the order dated 29.05.2023 passed by Hon’ble NCLT Delhi, the bank claimed total amount as admitted for Rs. 1,95,19,029/- and out of this amount Rs. 15791000/- was paid and as per affidavit filed by Mr. Hemant Kumar Goyal only an amount of Rs. 37,28,029/- was payable. As per said order proposal was given by the Suspended Director to pay Rs. 54,00,000/- as a full and final payment but the bank was not agreed to it.

¶76

31.From the order passed by Hon’ble NCLT, Jaipur so placed on record, it is clear that the bank agreed for settlement whereas they approached Hon’ble NCLT for proceedings, as defined in IBC code.

¶77

32.From perusal of Demand Notice dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure P-9), which was issued as in Cash Credit Account no. 0221008700000587 & Bank Guarantee(s)/ Credit facilities availed by M/s Aesthic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd. and amount as on 31.03.2020, was Rs. 20735144/-, as outstanding.

¶78

33.This amount was same in the Possession Notice dt. 10.02.2021.

¶79

34.From letter dated 25.05.2021, total due amount against M/s Aesthic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd. as on 31.03.2021 was Rs. 9036248/- and very interestingly, this letter was addressed to Ms. Vashundhra Gupta,

¶80

¶81

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶82

¶83

who is also one of the guarantor/ stakeholder and the respondent bank has not taken any action for recovery of outstanding amount and in this regards orders were passed by this Tribunal on 18.06.2022.

¶84

35.Letter dated 25.05.2021 is required to be reproduced because the bank is giving an offer of settlement to one of its Director i.e. Ms. Vashundhra Gupta but on the other hand, the bank is taking all actions against present SA applicant, who has deposited an amount of Rs.14960000/- during the period on or before 1309.2021 so, letter dated 25.05.2021, is reproduced here as under:-

¶85

Date: 25.05.2021

¶86

Ms. Vasundhra Gupta Guarantor/Stakeholder Aesthetic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd.

¶87

Reg: Proposal for One Time Settlement of the loan account M/s Aesthetic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd. (under CIRP)

¶88

This has reference to letter received from Shri Nitesh Shrivastava, advocate on behalf of your good self vide which it has been intended to settle the account through One Time Settlement but OTS amount has not been indicated by you. In this regard, it is requested to please give your offer for OTS in amount along with terms of payment so that same may be placed before competent authority to take preliminary view on the offer.

¶89

For your reference we are giving here under the present status of account:-

¶90

Principal Ledger O/s as on date 31.03.2021	:	Rs.77,61,999.0
+ Outstanding/pending bank guarantee		Rs.10,42,041.00
Interest upto 31.03.2021	:	Rs. 22,21,885.00
Charges upto 31.03.2021	:	Rs. 6,10,323.00
Dues as on 31.03.2021	:	Rs. 1,16,36,248.03
Less-Amount deposited on 06.04.2021	:	Rs. 26,00,000.00
Total Dues as on 31.03.2021	:	Rs. 90, 36,248.03

¶91

Value of Securities available to bank for recovery: Rs. 403.27 Lacs

¶92

Please submit your concrete OTS offer as committed as above.

¶93

¶94

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶95

¶96

From the last line of this letter it is once again clear that respondent bank is asking for OTS proposal from the guarantor, against whom they failed to take any actions under the provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002, reasons best known to them. From the perusal of Demand Notice dated 28.09.2020 it is also clear that there are total 5 mortgaged properties out of which Residential House situated at Plot no. 9, Scheme no.1, Golimar Garden, Lalkothi Scheme, Sahkar Marg, in the name of Smt. Manjula Rani Gupta there but against this guarantor also respondent bank has not taken any steps.

¶97

37.It is a fact, that against the corporate debtor i.e. M/s Aesthic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd. the respondent bank has taken proceedings before the Hon’ble NCLT, Jaipur form the order dated29.05.2023 It is clear that amount of Rs. 54.00 Lacs remains to be deposited, for which Ms. Vashundhra Gupta and Sh. Manjula Rani Gupta, both the guarantors gave proposal, to deposit the same.

¶98

38.From the perusal of order dated 19.04.2023 passed by Hon’ble NCLT, Jaipur, it is clear that the respondent bank was ready and willing to settle the account with the corporate debtor and the proceedings which were initiated before the NCLT, Jaipur with the object of initiation CIRP proceedings were in fact in progress but the bank agreed to go for settlement.

¶99

39.It is a fact, that against two other guarantor the respondent bank failed to take any steps for recovery of the amount because both the guarantors failed to file any such securitization application before this Tribunal and on the other hand the present SA applicant who deposited an amount of Rs. 14960000/- is still facing actions as the bank is not releasing title documents of four immovable properties, for which the respondent bank agreed on earlier occasion, through letter dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P-2) and relevant para, with regard to release of 4 immovable properties is reproduced here as under:-

¶100

10*

¶101

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶102

¶103

24.12.2020 Sh.Charan Singh Khangarot S/o Sh.Mukut Singh Khangarot R/o M-28, Incometax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur Reg: Proposal for Release of four IP's in your name -the guarantee of Sh. Charan Singh Khangarot in NPA Account: M/s Aesthetic Stone India Arts Pvt. Ltd. With reference to your application dated 27.12.2020 proposal was placed before higher authorities, our higher office has approved release of following 4 IPs (not release guarantee) in the name of the guarantor Shri Charan Singh Khangarot against offer of Rs. 122.60 Lacs (Rs. One crore twenty two Lacs sixty thousand) against latest market value of Rs. 122.41 Lacs subject to following terms and conditions.

¶104

40.The objection of the respondent bank that the SA applicant sold out the subject mortgaged properties through registered sale deed to some third parties, is not liable to be accepted because the property was mortgaged by the SA applicant with the respondent bank and the respondent bank being a secured creditor is duty bound to release the property papers only to the mortgagor/ owner of the subject mortgaged property who is the SA applicant and if he has sold out the mortgaged properties to some other third persons, the purchaser of those properties are at liberty to raise the this issue before the appropriate/competent forum, and SA applicant shall face the music of those actions, but as of now Respondent Bank is required to release the property papers of four immovable properties, through guarantee can be treated as continued but subject to order’s passed by Hon’ble NCLT, dated 21.03.2023.

¶105

41.In my considered opinion the borrower, after committing default is having an option to deposit the outstanding amount and to get the property released and as per law also, the secured creditor, is duty bound to release the property papers in favor of borrower/ guarantors, if the amount, so agreed, stands deposited and after releasing of the

¶106

11*

¶107

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶108

¶109

title deeds it will be headache of borrower to take or to face any actions

¶110

for disposal of the subject property.

¶111

42.As already stated in Para no. 35, herein above as on 31.03.2021 the

¶112

amount of Rs. 9036248/- was to be deposited and it is very surprising that the respondent bank wrote this letter to one of the guarantor Ms. Vahundhra Gupta only and from this letter it is crystal clear that against the demand as on 31.03.2021 remaining amount is Rs. 9036248/- . The SA applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 14960000/- and therefore, SA applicant is having every right to get the mortgaged properties (four plots) released in his favor.

¶113

It is important to maintain here that the bank has filed OA no. 1189/2022 against M/s Aesthic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd. in which Ms. Vashundhra Gupta and Ms. Manjula Rani Gupta are defendants no. 2 & 3 and present SA applicant is at Defendant no. 4. The amount so claimed is Rs. 9036248/- only due as on 31.03.2021 so, again it is clear that claim of bank is for same amount as stated in letter dated 31.03.2021.

¶114

44.Now, the value of secured assets is required to be discussed in order to show that the bank is having right to proceed against another guarantor Smt. Manjula Rani Gupta, value of whose property, must be about Rs. 2.75 Core or more.

¶115

45.In the letter dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure P-19) amount due as is Rs. 9036248/- and value of securities is Rs. 403.27 Lacs and our of which value of remaining four properties of SA applicant was not more than Rs. 1,22,60,000/- and approval for release of these 4 properties, on deposit of Rs. 12260000/- was granted by competent authority of the bank, which was conveyed by the bank through letter dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P-11). So, value of remaining last property owned by one of the guarantor Ms. Manjula Rani Gupta is about Rs. 2.80 Crore and the respondent bank could have proceeded against

¶116

12*

¶117

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶118

¶119

that property also for recovery of entire amount simultaneously, as they proceeded against the properties of present SA applicant.

¶120

As the bank agreed for settlement in the proceedings pending before Hon’ble NCLT, Delhi and so order dated 21.03.2023 requires to be discussed because in Para no. 4, as restriction was imposed upon Financial Creditor as well as other creditors to not to claim more amount from the guarantors for the loan availed, Para 4 and 5 of the order dated 21.03.2023, are reproduced here as under for ready reference:-

¶121

Hence, we are making it clear that this is not recovery forum and interest at any rate and the increasing CIRP cost with legal expenses are to be recovered through IBC proceedings. We also further make it clear that no FC or other Creditor can claim more amount than the amount is due to them even good amount of property is available from the Guarantor for the loan availed. No progress in the matter from the date the CIRP started on 04.03.2020 due to some irrelevant issue except increase of CIRP cost and extension of CIRP period for a small MSME Unit.

¶122

Considering all the arguments from both the sides and in the interest of justice, the Suspended Director is allowed, as prayed for, to submit a revised Resolution Plan within seven days considering all aspects including the outstanding LG amount, available margin money, CIRP costs, Guarantee given, proceedings under SARFAESI and Hon’ble High Court so that matter is resolved through Resolution Plan once for all and the MSME unit starts working without further loss time.

¶123

47.As the resolution plan was rejected by Authorized officer of the respondent bank is ongoing proceedings before the Hon’ble NCLT, Jaipur so Hon’ble NCLT, Jaipur directed to Sh. Hemant Kumar Goyal, Authorized officer to remain present before the said bench on 10.07.2023 and to explain necessary contents of affidavit.

¶124

So, from the order dated 21.03.2023, passed by Hon’ble NCLT, Jaipur now no financial creditor, i.e. the respondent bank also can claim more amount than the amount is due to them even good amount of property is available from the guarantor for the loan availed and so proceedings cannot be initiated against the guarantor also.

¶125

13*

¶126

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶127

¶128

49.Finally I am of the view that the SA applicant deposited an amount of 1446000/- against agreed amount of Rs. 1226000/- as agreed by the bank in letter dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P-11), so the applicant do have every right to claim release of original title deeds of 4 mortgaged property. Respondent bank have nothing to do, if the SA applicant executed Sale Deed of said plots because bank has already recovered an amount of Rs. 14960000/- so now they are bound to return the original title deeds to SA applicant, without further delay.

¶129

50.As of now, an amount of Rs. 54.00 Lacs is to be paid by Suspended Guarantor i.e. Sh. Vahundhra Gupta, as stated in order dated 29.05.2023 passed by Hon’ble NCLT, Jaipur as she proposed to pay the said amount as full and final settlement, but why the bank was not agreed to it, God knows, and as Hon’ble NCLT, has already directed to Mr. Hemant Kumar Goyal to remain present on the next date of hearing i.e. 10.07.2023 before them, so Hon’ble NCLT, Jaipur will decide this issue.

¶130

51.So, based on above said discussion following facts are clear :-

¶131

52.The Respondent bank failed to initiate any recovery proceedings against remaining two guarantors i.e. Smt. Manjula Rani Gupta and Ms. Vashundhra Gupta. The respondent bank initiated actions as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002 against the present SA applicant only as a guarantor whereas the first property, which is detailed at the demand notice dated 28.09.2020 is owned by one of the guarantor Smt. Manjula Rani Gupta, is having value of Rs. 2.75 Crore approximately.

¶132

53.It is also a fact that as on 31.03.2021 as admitted by the respondent bank only an amount of Rs. 9036248/- was to be recovered.

¶133

54.It is also a fact that before NCLT, Jaipur Respondent bank being a secured creditor agreed for the settlement of the account with the corporate debtor and in my considered opinion if the bank being secured creditor is ready for any kind of settlement, the said settlement

¶134

14*

¶135

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶136

¶137

is to be treated between the borrower and secured creditor and bank do not have any right to segregate the issue of settlement with the corporate debtor and not with the guarantors of the corporate debtor.

¶138

55.On one hand the respondent bank was ready to settle the account on the basis of claim filed before NCLT, Delhi for an amount of Rs. 1.95 Crore but SA applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 14960000/- but still the respondent bank is not ready and willing to release four mortgaged properties of the present SA applicant.

¶139

56.The role of competent officer Sh. Hemant Kumar Goyal is completely doubtful in the present matter because he took actions as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002 only against one of the guarantor and not against the remaining two guarantors whereas the mortgaged property of one of the guarantor was available with them and they could have also initiate recovery proceedings on the said mortgaged property.

¶140

57.The present SA applicant deposited entire amount as per the valuation of the immovable properties on an offer given by the bank through letter dated 24.12.2020 and now the bank is trying to settle the account with the corporate debtor only before the Hon’ble NCLT, Jaipur and then they want to proceed ahead for recovery of amount from the guarantor but only against the present guarantor and not against the remaining two guarantors, which cannot be allowed.

¶141

58.In the present matter initially on 18.06.2022 the respondent bank was directed to file on record an affidavit explaining therein that what steps were taken by them for recovery of the amount from another guarantor Ms. Vashundhra Gupta but the respondent bank failed to file any such report on record.

¶142

From the letter dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure P-19) it is also clear that amount as shown as deposited, was deposited by the SA applicant because, an amount of Rs. 12260000/- was deposited by the SA applicant on or before 25.02.2021 and remaining amount of Rs.

¶143

15*

¶144

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶145

¶146

27,00,000/- was also deposited by him till 13.09.2021, whereas this SA was filed on 21.03.2022.

¶147

60.Accordingly, in my considered opinion, as of now the bank do not have right to claim any amount from the present SA applicant as well as against any of the guarantor because amount of settlement has already been agreed between the borrower from and the bank & another guarantor Ms. Vashundhra Gupta is agreed to pay remaining Rs. 54.00 Lacs as discussed in order dated 29.05.2023, passed by Hon’ble NCLT, Jaipur.

¶148

61.Therefore, proceedings initiated against the present SA applicant are quashed and set aside as these proceedings cannot be allowed to continue in the light of Para no. 5 of the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by Hon’ble NCLT, Jaipur.

¶149

62.Accordingly, this Securitization Application, filed by the SA applicant stands disposed of as allowed as the applicant has deposited amount of Rs. 14960000/- with the respondent bank so, Authorized Officer of the bank is now directed to remain present along with original title deeds of four immovable properties of SA applicant before this Tribunal on 26.06.2023 because the amount whatsoever remains against the settlement is to be deposited by the corporate debtor and remaining two guarantors as per order dated 29.05.2023, as detailed here in above, under the settlement process which was agreed upon with the corporate debtor and the respondent bank before the Hon’ble NCLT, Jaipur.

¶150

The Authorized Officer is directed to deposit original title deeds of four immovable properties with the Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal on 26.06.2023 without seeking any adjournment.

¶151

Put up for compliance on 26.06.2023.

¶152

(VIVEK SAXENA) Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶153

16*

Charan Singh Khangarot v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Singh Khangarot v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Mahadev Earthmovers Company

M S Shivam Enterprises versus Punjab National Bank

Ashutosh Bhardwaj versus the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

Kuten Chandra Barman versus Hero Housing Finance Ltd.

Om Prakash Kumawat versus Hero Housing Finance Ltd.

M S Dsr Infra versus Punjab National Bank