Ashok Arora vs Indian Overseas Bank

Ranjit Singh, J

The Tribunal below had disposed of the IA filed by the appellant with a direction to pay the amount due within 30 days in terms of the earlier order passed on 28th December, 2010. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Plea of the appellant appearing in person was that 30 days' time allowed by the Tribunal is inadequate and accordingly prayed that some sufficient time be allowed to him to make the payment. On this basis, notice was issued.

Even on 10th February, 2015 the appellant submitted before this Tribunal that he was willing to discharge the entire liability even if some reasonable time is allowed. To show his bona fide, the appellant was given 10 days time to make a deposit of Rs. 2 lacs. On the next date, the appellant did not appear and the appeal was accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.

Subsequently, the appellant filed an application for recall of the order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution on the ground that he had noted the date wrongly. Notice on this application was issued. Order dismissing the appeal was recalled on April 28, 2015. The case was fixed for arguments.

The Counsel for the Bank would point out that the appellant had prayed for time to make the deposit and he may be permitted to deposit amounts. On this, the appellant states that one year time be allowed to him to discharge the liability. Finding that this prayer was unreasonable, the appellant was asked to pray for reasonable time especially in the background that he was given only 30 days' time to make this deposit.

The notice was issued by the Tribunal below on 9th September, 2014 and by now a period of nine months has already gone passed which the appellant has not made any payment except a sum of Rs. 2 lacs which was paid as per the direction issued by this Tribunal. The appellant then prays for nine months time to discharge the liability. The Counsel for the respondent-Bank has rightly objected to this prayer by pointing out to the entire background of this case.

The SA filed by the appellant was finally disposed of on December 28, 2010. Vide this order, the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lacs pursuant to his undertaking on or before 30th December, 2010. This deposit was required to be made through demand draft or cash. The appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 5.50 lacs by way of demand draft. The remaining amount was directed to be paid with simple interest reducing balance based through nine equal regular monthly instalments. Each instalment was required to be cleared during the third week of every English Calendar month. The first instalment was required to be cleared in the month of February 2011. In the event of failure to liquidate two consecutive monthly instalments, the Receiver was given liberty to take possession of the assets with the police help. The sale was to be carried out after due compliance with the provisions of Rules.

It is, thus, seen that the appellant has been pleading and getting time to make the payment since 2010. Though the conduct of the appellant was not very encouraging, the Tribunal below had still allowed him thirty days time. The appellant otherwise had failed to make the payment in terms of the order dated 28th December, 2010. In my view, the appellant has been afforded more than reasonable and sufficient opportunities but he has not shown any intention or keenness to discharge the liability. Apparently, the appellant is only interested in buying time. Even nine months have now been taken by the appellant without making any effort to discharge the liability. Period of nine months now prayed for by the appellant is, therefore, found unreasonable and cannot be allowed. Considering the pleas raised before me, option is given to the appellant to discharge the entire liability within a period of three months. The appellant, however, has declined to accept the same. Accordingly, no case for any interference in the appeal is made out. The same is dismissed as such.