Dismissed

Ms Vintage Foods and Industries Ltd. v. Idbi Bank

DRT5 Apr 2024SA/13/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI petition as infructuous. Applicants sought to amend prayer to challenge a sale notice; Tribunal held sale had already occurred, making relief impossible, and condemned deliberate delay despite High Court liberalisation. Court sympathized but could not grant relief.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for amendment to challenge sale notice dismissed; SARFAESI petition dismissed as infructuous.

Ms Vintage Foods and Industries Ltd. versus Idbi Bank — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 5^th Day of April, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI A.S.JAYACHANDRA

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

S.A. No.13 of 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

1. M/s. Vintage Foods and Industries Ltd.,

¶8

No.255/15, New No.29, 5^th Main, 13^th Cross, Vayalikaval, Malleshwaram, Bangalore -560003, Rep. by its Director Mr. N.K.Mohta

¶9

2. Sri.N.K.Mohta,

¶10

S/o. Late Ram Ratan Mohta, Aged about 64 years, Residing No.D-202, Mantri Greens Apartment, No.1, Sampige Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560003.

¶11

3. Mrs. Sarita Mohta,

¶12

W/o. N.K. Mohta Aged about 59 years, Residing No.D-202, Mantri Greens Apartment, No.1, Sampige Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560003.

¶13

, , , Applicants

¶14

AND

¶15

1. The Authorised Officer,

¶16

IDBI Bank Ltd., Stressed Assets Stabilization Funds (SASF), 9^th Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC complex, Cuffe Parade MUMBAI-400005.

¶17

¶18

2. The Authorized Officer,

¶19

Karnataka State Industrial Investment And Development Corporation Ltd (KSIDC) No.49, Khanija Bhavana, 4^th Floor, East Wing, Devaraj Urs Road Bangalore-560001. . . . Respondents. :- Ld. Counsel for the Applicants Sh. Milind Dange Ld. Counsel for the Respondents :- None

¶20

By this order the petition filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act challenging the Possession Notice dated 20.07.2017 and the IAs files subsequently are being disposed together as observed in the order sheet consistently, after filing of such IAs in this Tribunal; after transfer of this case. The SA was filed before DRT-I, Bangalore, which was not registered till its transfer to this Tribunal owning to change in the pecuniary jurisdiction. The amount involved in the debt is Rs.113,39,24,238.00.

¶21

: - O R D E R - :

¶22

FACTS OF THE CASE :-

¶23

1.0 The Possession Notice is dated 20.07.2017 concerning the immovable property situated in Bangalore south Taluk is under challenge.

¶24

1.1 The SA was filed on 11.03.2019 before DRT-I, Bangalore. The same is transferred to this Tribunal on 31.10.2022.

¶25

1.2 The Applicants submit that the delay in filing the SA is explained in the petition. Applicants refer to an order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.56657-56660 of 2018 disposed on 18.02.2019. The Order of the Hon’ble High Court is as under:-

¶26

“These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notice dated 7.12.2018 issued by R-1 vide Annex-X; and etc.

¶27

¶28

These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' group this day, the Court made the following:-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Sri.A.V.Amarnathan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri.T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Sri.V.F.Kumbar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶31

2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.

¶32

3. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the impugned notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

¶33

4. In view of the order dated 30.01.2019 Passed by this Court in W.P.No.6594/2018 and for the reasons assigned therein, the petitioners have a remedy of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, the petitions are disposed of with a liberty that in case the petitioners avail of the remedy provided to them under Section 17 of the Act within three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Tribunal shall extend the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the petitioners and shall decide the application. Till then, the interim order shall continue.

¶34

With the aforesaid liberty, the petitions are disposed of.

¶35

5. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE”

¶37

2.0 Coming to the gist of the present case, the Defendant No.1 Bank had sanctioned certain loans on 20.11.1997 and 31.03.1999. There was delay in implementation of production and strike in the ports at Denmark. Applicants admit that they could not reach the targets and the loan accounts have become NPA.

¶38

2.1 The Defendant No.1 Bank moved a Company Petition No.109/2002 on 19.06.2002, which came to be dismissed on 22.11.2007 in view of the settlement and

¶39

¶40

with a further liberty to the bank to revive the petition in case of breach of the settlement.

¶41

2.2 It is submitted that a Mahazar has taken place on 02.08.2002 and the 2^nd Defendant namely KSIIDC had kept the machineries under lock and key.

¶42

2.3 Defendant No.1 offered OTS for Rs.1.6 Crores vide their letter dated 22.12.2006 and a sum of Rs.1.2 Crore were paid and there was a due of Rs.40 Lakhs as per the letter of D1 dated 11.07.2008. Though the applicant was ready and willing to pay the balance the same was not accepted as there was a pari pasu right over the property with Defendant No.2. There has been some correspondence between the parties. However, the Defendant Bank revoked the OTS by its another organ the SASF (to which the debt was transferred). The said letter of revocation dated 06.12.2016 was never communicated; the intimation by the bank by its letter dated 06.12.2016 to this effect was given to the knowledge of the Applicant. However, the Applicants were writing letters for OTS with Defendant No1 Bank vide letters dated 01.12.2016, 21.01.2017, 31.05.2017, 14.08.2017.

¶43

2.4 To the letters of the applicant, the Defendant No.1 Bank vide communication dated 20.06.2017 and 28.08.2017 asked the applicants to substantially improve the settlement proposals.

¶44

3.0 However, the 1^st Defendant issued a demand notice dated 07.10.2016 calling upon the Applicants to pay Rs.113,39,24,238.00, which is fanciful. The same is replied by the Applicants through their letter dated 14.09.2017. Thereafter, the Defendant Bank issued Possession Notice dated 24.03.2017 concerning plant and machinery, which is also replied. Subsequently, the bank had issued the possession notice concerning the immovable property vide the notice dated 20.07.2017.

¶45

¶46

3.1 It is also pleaded that there has been correspondence between the applicants and the Defendant No.1 thereafter. However, the e-auction notice concerning machineries vide the letter dated 24.09.2018 was published illegally and a sum of Rs.40,82,000/- was recovered by auctioning the plant and machinery. The plant and machineries is the subject matter of the loan agreement between the applicants and Defendant No.2. The Defendant No.2 had filed a civil case also in Misc No.47/2008.

¶47

3.2 Inspite of recovering a sum of Rs.40,82,000/-, fresh sale notice of immovable property dated 07.12.2018 is issued by Defendant No.1, which is totally uncalled for. It is seen from the pleadings that the said notice is challenged in the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, which disposed the matter granting liberty to approach the Tribunal. Hence the present petition challenging the Possession Notice dated 20.07.2017.

¶48

GROUNDS :-

¶49

4.0 Though the applicants are ready and willing to pay the balance as per the OTS proposals and though there has been a regular correspondence, the Defendant No.1 Bank proceeded to sell the properties. When the Defendant Bank wanted to sell the machinery, the Applicants have filed a civil suit and an injunction application. Since the City Civil Court failed to consider the IA, the applicants moved the Hon'ble High Court.

¶50

4.1 Though the OTS was partly acted upon, again issuing letters by the Defendant No.1 Bank to improve the settlement proposal, the same is illegal. The Applicants submit that when the balance amount as per OTS was Rs.40 Lakhs, the demand notice for a sum of Rs.113,39,24,238.00 is not explained.

¶51

¶52

4.2 Though the plant and machinery were in the custody of Defendant No.2, the same was auctioned by Defendant No.1. In fact, Defendant No.2 seized the machineries on 02.08.2002, without any information to the Applicants.

¶53

4.3 The Defendant No.1 Bank did not send the letters to the correct address, which is dated 11.11.2010. The revocation of OTS is thus surprising.

¶54

4.4 Section 53 A of the TP Act comes into play and the transferee cannot claim any right in the Possession of plant and machinery.

¶55

4.5 The buy back of the machinery and other things are pleaded, which are of the year 2018 with their importers, which is superfluous for the purposes of this petition. However, it is submitted that the auction purchaser was illegally given the custody of the same and the auction purchaser had demolished the walls and roof of the industrial shed in taking possession of the movables. Certain grounds are pleaded demonstrating the illegality of the sale of plant and machinery, which is not the subject matter involved in this petition challenging the possession notice of immovable property. It is alleged that the bifurcation of the plant and machinery and the immovable property is the worst decision by IDBI.

¶56

4.6 The applicants had suffered huge loss and their brand name is spoiled and a compensation of Rs.2,042 Crores is sought, which the Applicants wants to peg down to Rs.204 Crores by way of an IA.

¶57

VERSION OF THE DEFENDANT NO.1:-

¶58

5.0 It is seen from the record that the objections were filed on 18.06.2019 and certain documents are also placed. It is submitted that IDBI granted EFS Loan of USD 8,91,390 (About 330 Lakhs in 1997 and Corporate loan of Rs.300 Lakhs in March, 1999 for purchase of equipment to manufacture diary products. Security Interest is

¶59

¶60

created by the Applicants, hypothecating the movables including plant and machinery and the immovable property. Applicants failed to repay in terms of the loan agreement. The loan was classified as NPA on 29.03.2000. OA is filed before DRT, Bangalore in OA No.189/2004.

¶61

5.1 The Central Government created a trust by name “Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund” (SASF) on 24.09.2004, with an object to acquire the stressed assets of IDBI and the same is notified as a financial institution by a notification dated 29.09.2004. Thus all the stressed assets are transferred under lease in favour of SASF.

¶62

5.2 Consequent to the One Time Settlement communication dated 22.12.2006 by the SASF, the OA 189/2004 was disposed by an order dated 24.05.2017. As per the terms of One Time Settlement, the crystallized amount of Rs.160 Lakhs to be paid as (1) Cash payment of Rs.100 lakhs (2) Allotment of Rs.6 Lakhs equity shares of VFIL having face value of Rs.10/- each within three months from the date of LOA and the Promoters would buy back the entire equity of Rs.60 Lakhs within 3 years from the date of LOA i.e. on or before December, 21, 2009. The Applicant Company made total payment of Rs.60 Lakhs only towards cash component and issued 6 lakhs equity shares of Rs.10/- each. The Applicant Company failed to comply with the One Time Settlement terms and SASF has sent reminders vide letters dated 28^th February, 2008, 11^th July 2008 and 29^th May, 2009 to honour the terms of One Time Settlement. As the Applicant Company failed to honour the One Time Settlement, the Respondent No.1 has vide letter dated 11.11.2010 revoked the One Time Settlement granted to the company and restored the original liabilities.

¶63

5.3 Since the Applicants did not repay, demand notice was issued dated 07.10.2016, demanding payment of Rs.113,39,24,238.00. The same is acknowledged by the Applicant No.2 representing D1. Consequently, Possession Notice dated 17.03.2017 was issued and the same was affixed on the building which are duly

¶64

¶65

acknowledged. The photograph of affixture and the acknowledgement with the notices are enclosed with the objections. The publication of the possession notices in the newspapers dated 26.07.2017 is also furnished.

¶66

5.4 The sale notices dated 20.09.2018 for auctioning the assets of the company by 30.10.2018 was published in the English and Vernacular dated 20.09.2018, (the Hindu and Udayavani) the same was communicated to the applicants. Plant and machinery were sold to the highest bidder on 30.10.2018 i.e. M/s. 7 Star Traders and the Sale Certificate was issued on 17.11.2018.

¶67

5.5 Sale notice concerning the immovable property is dated 07.12.2018 is issued. The Applicant Company challenged the same in WP No.56657-56660 of 2018, disposed on 18.02.2019.

¶68

5.6 Thereafter, Defendant No.1 issued fresh notice on 24.04.2019. The said notice of sale was also published in the Hindu and Udayavani issues dated 14.05.2019 fixing the auction to be held on 31.05.2019. The mortgaged property was sold for a sum of Rs.5,70,96,000/- and sale confirmation was issued on 31.05.2019.

¶69

5.7 Inspite of sale of the immovable property, the Applicants have challenged the Possession Notice as per the Orders of the Hon'ble High Court the Applicant ought to have challenged the Sale Notice, but attacks the Possession Notice dated 20.07.2017 which is highly time barred.

¶70

5.8 Regarding the other allegations made, the same are denied, explaining the disposal of OA 180/2004 and the consequent failure of the applicants. It is also made out clear that the 1^st Defendant asked the Company to sort out the issues if any with the 2^nd Defendant since the same is not within the purview of the 1^st Defendant.

¶71

¶72

5.9 The other allegations are denied reiterating that earlier One Time Settlement permitted was revoked and the subsequent proposals put forth by the Applicant Company was not found acceptable.

¶73

5.10 The statement of objections are verified by the Dy. General Manager, SASF. The Annexure include the order of the DRT-1, Bangalore 24.05.2007 in OA No.189/2004.

¶74

6.0 The 2^nd Defendant did not file any objections. It is seen from the record that the matter was kept for hearing on the IAs and final hearing till 14.07.2022. The statement of objections by Defendant No.1 was filed before the DRT-1, Bangalore.

¶75

COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL :-

¶76

7.0 After transfer of this case, this Tribunal by an order dated 10.01.2023 directed the Registry to intimate the parties. Consequently on 13.02.2023, one counsel appeared and he undertook to inform the Defendants of the next date. However, on 27.02.2023, when this Tribunal wanted to know the consequent developments pursuant to the possession notice, as to who is in possession, the Ld. Counsel expressed lack of knowledge and submitted that the sale of the immovable property is concluded and the same is not questioned in the instant application. Thereafter, the Ld. Counsel intimated the Defendants of the next date and none appeared for the Defendants and they were placed exparte by this Tribunal vide order dated 08.05.2023.

¶77

7.1 It is relevant to note that the SA was never registered before the DRT-1, Bangalore and it was kept pending in Dy. No.538/2019. This Tribunal noted that since the SA is not registered till 20.06.2023 and the number is assigned thereafter consequent to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court.

¶78

¶79

IAS FILED AND PENDING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL :-

¶80

8.0 IA No.126/2023 :- By this IA, the Applicant prays for the following amendments:

¶81

(i) [In the 1^st line of the prayer (a) delete the word “Possession” before the word Notice, and insert the word “Sale” before the same word Notice; and in the same Line, delete the dated “20.07.2017” and add the date as “07.12.2018”

¶82

(ii) In the 2^nd line of the prayer (a) replace the Capital Letters “V” after the word Annexure with Capita Letter “Y”,]

¶83

ORDERS ON THE IA NO.126/2023 IN THIS SA .

¶84

9.0 The Applicant seeks amendment in the prayer. Initially Applicants challenged the Possession Notice dated 20.07.2017. Now by this amendment Applicants want to challenge the sale notice dated 07.12.2018 and delete the date and the word possession.

¶85

9.1 In the affidavit supporting the IA, the deponent namely the 2^nd Applicant informs that the Applicant No.1 Company is dissolved under IB Code. It is also pointed out that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed the petitioners to avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the benefits under Section 14 of the Limitation Act is extended.

¶86

9.2 It is also submitted that consequent to the said order, the applicants intend to challenge the sale notice dated 07.12.2018. The earlier prayers unamended is only a typographical error since the applicants challenged the measure of sale notice in the writ petition. Hence the application.

¶87

¶88

9.3 None appeared for the Defendants and they are exparte before this Tribunal. Heard the Ld. Counsel Sh. Milind Dange for the Applicants. It is made clear in the Order sheet dated 17.11.2023 that the IA will be disposed along with the main petition.

¶89

9.4 The Ld. Counsel submits that there has been only a typographical error and the Tribunals are to follow the established principles of law concerning the amendment to the pleadings. This Tribunal is asked to be liberal in granting the amendment since the Applicants will be put to irreparable loss and untold hardship. The Ld. Counsel relied on several rulings as under.

¶90

(a) 2007 AIR CAL 289 Dr.Dipankar Chakaraborthy Vs. Allahabad Bank.

¶91

(b) AIR (SC) 2009 P2420 Authorised Officer IOB Vs. Ashok Saw Mills

¶92

9.5 It is true that the Courts can always allow the plaintiff to amend the pleadings in order to give relief which is impliedly asked by the plaintiff and which does not alter the nature of the litigation. At the same time a party cannot be allowed by an amendment to set up a new cause of action, particularly when the lis on the new cause of action is barred. When the amendment does not constitute the addition of new cause of action, the amendment can be allowed.

¶93

9.6 It is also trite law that pleadings cannot be amended when it would expose the Defendant to an injury which would not be compensated in terms of costs.

¶94

9.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors on 22 March, 2006 had laid down the following guidelines, while adjudicating the amendments in the pleadings:-

¶95

“The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between

¶96

¶97

the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.

¶98

Order VI Rule 17 consists of two parts whereas the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the Court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. In our view, since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit, proposed amendment ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed. We fail to understand if it is permissible for the appellants to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit.

¶99

As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the Court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the contrary, the learned Judges of the High Court without deciding whether such an amendment is necessary has expressed certain opinion and entered into a discussion on merits of the amendment. In cases like this, the Court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard rights of both parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. It is settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the Court.

¶100

While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment.”

¶101

9.8 Applying the above test, the Tribunal is to find out who are the parties in the litigation prior to the amendment and in case the amendment is allowed who would be the parties that may be affected? Prior to the amendment, we have the financial institution acting under SARFAESI Act as one of the Defendant and another institution not connected with the SARFAESI Act legislation, whose actions are not challenged.

¶102

¶103

9.9. In the amendment application, now the Applicants want to challenge the sale notice dated 07.12.2018. In the statement of objections filed by the Respondent No.1, it was made clear that another sale notice was issued on 24.04.2019 and the sale was held on 31.05.2019 by way of e-auction, which is also confirmed by a letter dated 31.05.2019. This is seen in the objections of Defendant No.1 at internal Page – 4 of the objections filed on 18.06.2019 itself before the DRT-I, Bangalore.

¶104

9.10 From that onwards that is 18.06.2019 till filing of the present IA, on 03.07.2023 and even thereafter the Applicant is not questioning the sale concluded on 31.05.2019. There are successful purchasers as intimated in the sale certificate. There are five successful purchasers; they are not parties to the present SA. Inspite of much water having flown down under the bridge, the Applicant strangely seeks amendment for the incorporation of the sale notice dated 07.12.2018, consequent to which no sale took place.

¶105

9.11 No stay was granted by the DRT-1, Bangalore from the date of filing that is 11.03.2019 and the Applicants had also not insisted for the same. In the above context, the inexorable situation would be:

¶106

(a) The sale took place and confirmed on 31.05.2019 is never challenged. Even if the amendment is allowed no effective relief can be granted to the Applicants

¶107

(b) In the event of allowing the new cause of action, the same would be highly barred by limitation since Section 17(1) prescribes a period of limitation to refute legally such action within 45 days from the date of the sale notice. It is almost six years. Even after condoning the delay in presentation of the SA consequent to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka such a challenge should have been made atleast as on the date of filing of the petition before the DRT Bangalore by 11.03.2019. The delay of nearly five years is not explained and the same cannot be condoned consequent to the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of

¶108

¶109

Baroda Vs. Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah (P) Ltd., (2022)6 SCC 496 , which

¶110

observes as follows:-

¶111

12. The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment. In Transcore v. Union of India and Anr. 3 this Court held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security. It is unfortunate that proceedings where a property that has been brought to sale and third-party rights created under the provisions of the Act have remained inconclusive even after a decade.

¶112

9.12 In view of the above, this Tribunal sees no merit in the application seeking amendment to the prayer especially in view of no effective relief would be granted, assuming for the moment such amendment is allowed in the back drop of the sale having taken place consequent to the subsequent sale notice dated 24.04.2019 in favour of five purchasers who are not parties before this Tribunal.

¶113

9.13 In view of the above, this Tribunal finds no merits to allow the IA No.126/2023 and consequently the same stands dismissed.

¶114

ORDERS ON IA NO.2934/2019 (FILED BEFORE DRT-I, BANGALORE) :-

¶115

10.0 This IA is filed by Applicants for carrying out an amendment to incorporate Rs.204 Crores as compensation instead of 2042 crores.

¶116

10.1 No reply is filed. The same is accompanied by an affidavit of a counsel who stated that due to the typographical error an amount of 2042 crores is typed and the actual compensation prayed for is Rs.204 Crores.

¶117

10.2 Perused the prayers in the SA. No doubt in Para-12 of the SA compensation is claimed at Rs.2042 Crores. This IA will be dealt after examining the merits of the SA in the final order.

¶118

¶119

ON THE MERITS OF SA :-

¶120

11.0 Since the prayers urged in the SA having become infructuous in view of the sale having taken place consequent to the sale notice dated 24.04.2019, which is not challenged, the same stands dismissed as becoming infructuous.

¶121

11.1 Before parting, it is to be noted that though many grounds are urged in support of the prayers, the same cannot be looked into considering the subsequent sale unchallenged. The aspect of the moratorium operating and the law laid down in the Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure ltd reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 736 that there could be no proceedings under SARFAESI Act when the insolvency proceedings were pending as held in Para-35 cannot come to the aid of the Applicants in view of the proceedings before the NCLT itself had taken note of such development in its order dated 23.07.2019 at Para-9 of internal Page-15. The Applicants had never complained or protested in time either with the Hon'ble High Court or with the NCLT nor did they insist for stay before the DRT-1, Bangalore when the matter was pending and when the subsequent sale took place.

¶122

11.2 This Tribunal is to express its pity and sympathizes with the Applicant, but the passions and sympathies cannot take over to pass any orders to grant the relief’s urged in the SA, much less the compensation for the following reasons:

¶123

(a) The Possession Notice is challenged which cannot be set aside in view of the sale having taken place on 31.05.2019.

¶124

(b) The amendments sought in place of Possession Notice is to challenge the Sale Notice dated 07.12.2018; no sale took place consequent to the said notice.

¶125

¶126

(c) Even though it was notified to the Applicant about the sale having taken place in the written statement, the Applicants did not challenge such sale so far.

¶127

(d) Though the Ld. Counsel has filed a memo that the Applicants were ready by a DD dated 01.01.2019, for a sum of Rs.40 Lakhs consequent to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 19.12.2018, it is only argued before this Tribunal that the same was not accepted by the Defendant No.1. Such rejection by Defendant No.1 was not even informed to the Hon'ble High Court, while it passed the final orders in WP Nos.56657 to 56660/2018 dated 18.02.2019. The Applicants have not even protested about the rejection of DD by Defendant No.1 which they could have timely complained before the Hon'ble High Court.

¶128

(e) The case law urged by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicants are concerning the Limitation and the same was not urged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in their Writ Petition.

¶129

(f) There was a separate cause of action, arose in their favour when the subsequent sale notification dated 24.04.2019 was issued and the Applicants remained callous.

¶130

(g) Another case law urged to press the point that the sale is void ab-initio in view of the NCLT Proceedings pending, ought to have been urged in challenging the sale notice dated 24.04.2019 and not in the petition as presented with the prayers and the amended application.

¶131

(i) Further, the Applicant No.1 Company is liquidated as submitted by the Ld. Counsel. Viewed from any angle, this Tribunal does not find any reasons to grant the reliefs except expressing the sympathies with the Petitioners. Hence the following:-

¶132

¶133

: - O R D E R - :

¶134

In view of the above, the SA stands dismissed as becoming infructuous. Consequently, IA No.2934/2019 also stands dismissed.

¶135

All the other IAs also stands closed. Parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be communicated in accordance with the Rules to the parties concerned.

¶136

Sd/-

¶137

(A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶138

DRT-I, CHENNAI

¶139

(Dictated to PS, who directly typed in the system, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this 5^th Day of

¶140

April, 2024)

¶141