Dismissed

M/S Rahul Exports & Ors. v. Bank of India

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Mar 2013CR/1118/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition seeking stay of an order confirming sale of assets under SARFAESI/Securitisation regulations. The petitioners had promised to deposit Rs. 50 lacs to show bona fides but failed to meet the deadline, leading the Court to refuse further equitable protection.

What did the court decide?

Stay of confirmation of sale extended via promise to deposit Rs. 50 lacs was withdrawn; petition dismissed.

M/S Rahul Exports & Ors. Vs Bank of India — Company and Corporate | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No. 1118 of 2013

¶3

Date of decision: March 19, 2013

¶4

M/s Rahul Exports and others

.. Petitioners

Vs.

Bank of India

.. Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

¶10

Present: Mr. B.S. Sobti, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Anand, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

A.N. Jindal, J

¶12

The petitioners have sought to set aside the order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (herein referred as, 'the Tribunal').

¶13

The petitioners were under debt to the tune of Rs.3,23,39,555/as on 31.10.2011. Besides the said amount, the firm was to pay interest @ 3.50 per annum over base rate i.e. 14.25% in cash credit, 4.75% over base rate i.e. 15.50% in term loans and 19.25% in temporary overdraft in current account, per annum with monthly rests, therefore, the respondent bank initiated proceedings before the Tribunal whereupon, the petitioner, on appearance, sought breathing time to make payment. The Tribunal, vide order dated 21.8.2012 granted conditional stay. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under :-

¶14

“I have perused the record and the undated letter Annexure A6 and Annexure A8 where the applicants have undertaken to deposit certain amounts and promised to repay on expecting payments from the consigner of the product. The applicants who are asking little more time on the ground that they are expecting payments and claim from the insurance company to the tune of Rs.1.5 crores which they would remit directly to the Bank. Believing in their statement and on the ground of equity, I deem it fit that let the applicant be given little more

¶15

Civil Revision No. 1118 of 2013

¶16

-2-

¶17

¶18

time to prove their intention, it is directed that the respondent shall not dispossess the applicants till further orders. However, the Bank is at liberty to keep its trace on and provide the applicants 45 days time from the date of this order to prove their intention to repay the dues. The applicants on the other hand side are directed to approach the Authorised Officer of the Bank with a concrete proposal with a subsequent amount within 10 days from today and the respondent bank shall place on record the outcome of this proposal on the next date of hearing along with detailed reply with an advance copy to the opposite counsel.

¶19

Order Dasti.

¶20

Be listed on 21.8.2012.”

¶21

Thereafter the petitioner did not comply with the order which compelled the Tribunal to vacate the stay on 7.1.2013. The Tribunal in the aforesaid order, while vacating the stay also observed that out of the total amount of Rs.3.20 Crores approximately, the applicant had deposited only Rs.60,000/- which was negligible, and despite the time given to the petitioner, they did not deposit further amount. As such, the present petition has been filed.

¶22

On a categorical promise by the petitioner to deposit Rs.50 lacs, within one month, this court thought it expedient to extend equitable protection to the petitioners. Consequently, vide order dated 18.2.2013, this court stayed the confirmation of sale on payment of Rs.50 lacs. The relevant part of the order dated 18.2.2013 is reproduced as under :-

¶23

The petitioner has undertaken to deposit Rs.50 lacs within one month in order to show his bona fides. Let he deposit Rs.50 lacs by 18.3.2013, failing which the bank would be at liberty to proceed further in the matter.”

¶24

Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have not complied with the promise. As such, this court deems it appropriate not to extend the equity which was earlier extended by this Court.

¶25

Civil Revision No. 1118 of 2013

¶26

-3-

¶27

¶28

After all public money is to be recovered by the Bank through statutory machinery provided by the State. No such legal objection has been raised regarding the delivery of possession. As such, I am not inclined to hold that the petitioners have any case for stay of recovery of possession and further

¶29

proceedings qua sale.

¶30

Dismissed.

¶31

March 19, 2013 deepak

¶32

(A.N. Jindal) Judge

M/S Rahul Exports & Ors. v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rahul Exports & Ors. v. Bank of India

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

Union of India and Anr. Vs Sangeeta Kochha

Sarabjit Singh and Ors. Vs Mandip Singh and Ors.

Shambir Vs Sukhli Alias Sukhpal and Others

Sunder Kaur and Ors. Vs Iqbal Singh Bhatia and Ors.

H.S. Miglani Vs Punjab National Bank etc.

Jatinder Pal Kaur & Anr. Vs Ripudaman Singh & Anr.