Disposed

hI Tech Knitting v. Punjab and Sind Bank

DRT27 Jun 2025MA/6/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal appointed a Local Commission to deliver possession of factory premises to the applicant after the respondent bank refused to restore possession following a consent order and rent agreement, directing police assistance for the execution.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sh. Tejinder Singh Advocate as Local Commission to deliver possession of property to the applicant with assistance of Commissioner Police and S.H.O., fee fixed at Rs. 65,000 payable by

hI Tech Knitting versus Punjab and Sind Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ITEM NO.17

¶3

MA/6/2025

¶4

HI TECH KNITTING Vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

¶5

27.06.2025

¶6

Argued by: Ms Aarti Aman Arora Advocate for the Applicant (MA) Mr. A.B.S. Sidhu Advocate for the Respondent Bank

¶7

M/s Hi Tech Knitting Corporation (Applicant) has filed MA No. 6 of

¶8

2025 for appointing a Local Commission to deliver the possession of the factory to the Applicant against Authorised Officer, Punjab and Sind Bank (Respondent Bank).

¶9

Admittedly Applicant had filed SA No. 3 of 2024. On 02.01.2024, this Tribunal passed the following order in the SA:-

¶10

“This Securitisation Application has been filed under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Heard. Notice has been accepted by the counsel and the officer of the respondent bank.

¶11

It was agreed between the parties that the possession of the secured asset would be given on 16.01.2024 and in the eventuality of the same not being handed over to the respondent bank by the applicants, the applicants shall facilitate taking of the possession of the secured asset as already scheduled. It was further agreed between the parties that after taking the possession of the secured asset on 16.01.2024, rent agreement would be executed between the parties for facilitating the running of the factory on the spot by the applicants for a period of one year and the respondent bank shall be at liberty to initiate the securitisation proceedings with regard to the sale of the secured asset after one year from today. It was further agreed that the rate of rent shall be Rs. 2,25,000/- per month. It was further agreed that in the eventuality of any breach with regard to the payment of

¶12

MA/6/2025 HI TECH KNITTING Vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

¶13

¶14

rent, the respondent bank shall at liberty to advance the sale of the secured asset. Needless to say that at the time of taking the possession/handing over the possession of the secured asset, the inventory shall also be prepared and the proceedings of taking/handing over the possession shall be video-graphed. It was further agreed that the rent agreement shall be executed within 7 days of 16.01.2024 and the rent shall be payable with effect from 01.02.2024 and if the rent of two months become overdue, the respondent bank shall have the right to advance the date of sale of the secured asset. It was also agreed that the default in making payment of the rent would bring an end to the rent agreement so executed between the parties and a stipulation in this regard would be incorporated in the rent agreement itself. It was further agreed that in the above stated time schedule, the respondent bank shall not cause any impediment in the running of the factory in the premises. Needless to say, that parties shall be bound by their statements. In the eventuality of any breach of the undertaking given today on behalf of the applicants, the respondent bank shall be at liberty to commence the securitisation proceedings from the stage at which those are today. In these circumstances, this SA is disposed of as settled. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

¶15

It is averred in the MA that in compliance of order dated 02.01.2024, Applicant had delivered the possession of the mortgage land admeasuring 9211.120 sq. yards to the Bank. On 16.01.2024, a rent-deed was also executed between the parties. However, on 16.01.2024, Smt. Kulpreet Kaur, Branch Manager and Sh. Pranav Prasher, Authorised Officer refused to restore the possession to the Applicant saying that the rent shall be paid with effect from 01.02.2024 as per order dated 02.01.2024. Accordingly, they will hand over the possession on 01.02.2024. Applicant has alleged that on 31.01.2024, he visited the Branch and met Smt. Kulpreet Kaur, Branch Manager and Sh. Pranav Prasher,

¶16

MA/6/2025 HI TECH KNITTING Vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

¶17

¶18

Authorised Officer regarding de-sealing the factory premises on 01.02.2024. However, to hi utter surprise, both the officials refused to meet him. Accordingly, he sent an E-mail to the Branch and higher officials concerned. He also intimated that he would reach the factory premises on 01.02.2024 at 9:00 a.m. for taking the possession. On 01.02.2024, he reached the factory at 9:00 a.m. He was shocked to find that instead of restoring the possession, the Bank Officials had sealed the entire land measuring 18422 sq. yards. He waited till 5:00 p.m. but nobody reached the property. Despite repeated calls to Smt. Kulpreet Kaur, Branch Manager and Sh. Pranav Prasher, Authorised Officer, there was no response. Applicant has alleged that the Respondent Bank illegally, unlawfully sealed the whole of the land and building putting seal over the main gate on 16.01.2024 and gave false promise to deliver the possession on 01.02.2024 for a period of one year as per rentagreement. Applicant has also alleged that the Respondent instead of de-sealing the property and restoring the possession as per the consent order, filed Miscellaneous Applicant No. 24 of 2024 dated 11.01.2024 for recalling/reviewing the order dated 02.01.2024. Applicant has alleged that he is the lawful owner of land and building admeasuring 18400 sq. yards over which there are two factories each having 9211.120 sq. yards. Both these factories have common main entrance through grill gate and the Respondent Bank had sealed the main entrance. Accordingly, he is not having access to the main entrance. Applicant has also alleged that the main entrance factory land and building mortgaged with Punjab and Sind Bank for obtaining the credit facilities for M/s Hitech Knitting Corporation and M/s Delfab Global Private Limited and another factory mortgaged with M/s Piramil Capital and Housing Finance is still active and regular. He is suffering huge losses. He is also owner of adjacent factory admeasuring 9,188.12 sq. yards which he is unable to lease out to M/s Shree Cement Limited which was keenly interested to take above premises on rent for a period of 9 years on monthly rent of Rs. 10 lacs as per

¶19

MA/6/2025 HI TECH KNITTING Vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

¶20

¶21

LOI dated 20.01.2024. He had requested the Bank many a time to open the main gate but the latter paid no heed. Applicant has alleged that after the Bank had taken the physical possession on 16.01.2024, Bank had reported to DRT that a major theft has taken place on 13.04.2024. Accordingly, Applicant had filed MA No. 37 of 2024 for appointing Local Commission. Local Commission had visited the property on 10.05.2024 and submitted its report to the Tribunal. On these facts, Applicant has filed the present application that a Local Commission be appointed to restore the possession to the Applicant and the same be photographed.

¶22

Bank in reply to the application has alleged that the Bank has challenged the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Tribunal before DRAT, Delhi, by filing Appeal No. 19 of 2025. The said Appeal had come up for hearing before the Hon’ble DRAT on 17.01.2025 and the notice was issued for 24.02.2025. Hon’ble DRAT has also declined ex-parte ad-interim injunction. It is also stated that the physical possession of the property is with the Bank. In case, the possession is delivered to the Applicant, the Appeal would be rendered infructuous. A sum of Rs. 25 Crore is due against M/s Delfab Global Private Limited and M/s Hitech Knitting Corporation. Regarding the order dated 02.01.2024, it is stated that it is a matter of record. It is admitted that the Bank had taken the possession and a rentdeed was also executed. It is stated that the application be dismissed.

¶23

I have heard Ms Arti Aman Arora, counsel for the Applicant and Mr. A.B.S. Sidhu, counsel for the Bank.

¶24

Ms Arti Aman Arora, counsel for the Applicant has vehemently argued that the Bank after giving the consent has resiled from its commitment. She has submitted that the Respondent is a public sector Bank. It does not behove a public sector Bank to conduct itself in a manner which is highly unbecoming. In fact, the Bank should have fulfilled its commitment and restored the possession to the Applicant. She further submitted that had the Bank not agreed to restore the

¶25

MA/6/2025 HI TECH KNITTING Vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

¶26

¶27

possession to the Applicant, the latter would not have delivered the possession to the Bank. Applicant had delivered the possession to the Bank after there was mutual understanding between the parties that the possession would be restored to the Applicant. Ms Arora further submitted that the Applicant had also filed MA No. 37 of 2024 and the Bank had also filed MA No. 24 of 2024. Whereas MA filed by the Bank for recalling was dismissed; MA filed by the Applicant for restoring the possession was allowed vide order dated 19.11.2024. Despite that the Bank has not restored the possession. Counsel submitted that a Local Commission be appointed to deliver the possession to the Applicant and in case, there is any resistance by the Bank, the Police be directed to deliver the possession to the Applicant with Police help.

¶28

Per contra , Mr. A.B.S. Sidhu, counsel for the Bank has submitted that the statement dated 02.01.2024 was made on behalf of the Bank under some misconception. Later on, Bank analyzed the situation and found that it would be able to recover only Rs. 27 lacs in the year and in this manner, Bank would not be able to recover its dues in a reasonable time. Mr. Sidhu further submitted that the application be dismissed.

¶29

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶30

It is admitted on the record that on 02.01.2024, this Tribunal had passed the order (extracted in the opening part of the order) with the consent of the parties. Applicant had delivered the possession to the Bank which had also entered into a rent agreement. However, on 02.01.2024, Bank refused to restore the possession to the Applicant. Applicant earlier filed MA No. 37 of 2024 for direction to the Bank to restore the possession. The Bank had also filed MA No. 24 of 2024 for recovery. Whereas the MA filed by the Applicant was allowed; MA filed by the Bank was dismissed. Bank had filed an Appeal before the Hon’ble DRAT which vide order dated 17.01.2025 refused to grant any ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

¶31

MA/6/2025 HI TECH KNITTING Vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

¶32

¶33

Considering the totality of circumstances, Sh. Tejinder Singh Advocate present in the Tribunal is hereby appointed Local Commission. He is directed to deliver the possession of the property to the Applicant. Commissioner Police, Gurgaon and S.H.O. Police Station, Sadar are asked to provide help to the Local Commission to deliver the possession to the Applicant. The fee of the Local Commission is fixed at Rs. 65,000/- in all which shall be paid by the Applicant. Local Commission would intimate the order of this Tribunal to the Bank. The LC would also get the proceedings video-graphed.

¶34

This order would also be subject to any further orders which this Tribunal may consider proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶35

A copy of this Final Order be furnished to all the parties free of cost and also to the Commissioner Police, Gurgaon and to S.H.O. concerned.

¶36

Local Commission would submit the report on 11.07.2025 . A copy of this order be also given to Sh. Tejinder Singh Advocate.

¶37

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (A.S. Narang) Dated: 27.06.2025 Presiding Officer ANJ DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional Charge)

hI Tech Knitting v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

hI Tech Knitting v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hans Mobile Shoppe Throuth Its Prop Girish Babanrao Samarth versus Utkarsh Small Finance Bank

Anoop Antony versus Icici Bank Limited

Bank of India versus Mr. Manoj Guha And Anr.

Khagendra Jana versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus Smt.Shakila P Shetty

Vidya versus Muthoot Finance Limited