The Guwahati High Court vacated an interim stay order in a SARFAESI Act matter because the debtor failed to deposit any settlement amount despite the stay. The Court noted the bank should still consider the One Time Settlement proposal.
Vacation of the interim order dated 07/01/2019 staying recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010090012019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 1739/2019
1:UNITED BANK OF INDIA
GUWAHATI BRANCH, HEM BARUAH ROAD, PANBAZAAR, GUWAHATI 781001, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER
VERSUS
1:MEGHA GRANULES PVT. LTD.
A PVT. LTD. CO. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHAYGAON , P.O. CHATABARI IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHWET AGARWAL, S/O TILOK CHAND AGARWAL, R/O FLAT NO. 101, BLOCK-B, SPANISH GARDEN, R.G. BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI 781005 IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent :
Linked Case : WP(C) 8855/2018
1:MEGHA GRANULES PVT. LTD.
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE
CHAYGAON P.O. CHATBARI IN THE DIST. KAMRUP BEING REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SHWET AGARWAL S/O TRILOK CHAND AGARWAL
Page No.# 2/4
R/O FLAT NO. 101 BLOCK-B SPANISH GARDEN R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005 IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.
VERSUS
1:ASSAM INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (AIIDC) BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI - 781021 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (AIIDC) BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI- 781021 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.
3:THE DEPUTY MANAGER (LAZ)
ASSAM INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (AIIDC) BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI- 781021 DIST.KAMRUP(M) ASSAM.
4:ESTATE OFFICER CUM GENERAL MANAGER
ASSAM INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (AIIDC) DIST. INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTRE KAMRUP MIRZA ASSAM.
Page No.# 3/4
5:STATE BANK OF INDIA COMMERCIAL BRANCH
JEEVANDEEP BUILDING-1
MIDDLETON STREET 2ND AND 5TH FLOOR KOLKATA- 700001-SAM BRANCH -II JEEVANDEEP BUILDING 1ST FLOOR 1 MIDDLENTON STREET KOLKATA- 700071.
6:CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA CORPORATE FINANCE BRANCH 33 N.S. ROAD
KOLKATA- 700001.
7:UNITED BANK OF INDIA GUWAHATI BRANCH HEM BARUAH ROAD
PANBAZAR GUWAHATI - 781001.
8:PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK FANCY BAZAR BRANCH LIC DIVISIONAL OFFICE BUILDING SS ROAD
FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC PNB
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 02-09-2019
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant United Bank of India. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party/writ petitioner, Ms. R. Kakati, learned
Page No.# 4/4
counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent no. 6.
This IA has been filed with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 07/01/2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) 8855/2018.
It appears from the record that the petitioner had earlier obtained a consortium finance from four banks including the applicant but when the loan account had become NPA, necessary action as per the provision of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, was initiated for recovery of the amount. It was at that stage, the opposite party/writ petitioner had approached this Court by filing the connected writ petition.
A perusal of the order dated 07/01/2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) 8855/2018 indicates that the writ petitioner had made a submission before this Court that efforts for settling the loan amount was under progress. But today, when the matter is taken up, it transpires that despite the order dated 07/01/2019, the writ petitioner/opposite party has not deposited a single penny with the banks till today.
Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the OTS proposal submitted his client has not been considered by the respondent bank till date.
Be that as it may, since there is a remedy available to the petitioner under the statute against the notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and considering the fact that the petitioner has failed to deposit any amount with the bank till today, I am of the view that the interim order dated 07/01/2019 should not be continued any further in its present form. The order dated 07/01/2019, therefore, stands vacated.
However, notwithstanding the order passed by this Court today vacating the stay order, it would still be open for the respondent bank to consider the OTS proposal made by the petitioner in accordance with RBI guidelines and take a decision in the matter before proceeding further with the recovery of the loan amount.
IA stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Sukhamay
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim stay order under the SARFAESI Act should be vacated in view of the non-deposit of amounts by the debtor.
Whether the bank is required to consider the One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal before proceeding with recovery.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
United Bank of India
Megha Granules Pvt. Ltd.
Suman Shyam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
