AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Bhasin, J
The respondent-Financial Institution had extended financial assistance to one Company by the name of M/s. Kayser India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'borrower Company') to the tune of five crores of rupees in February, 2014. Loan was repayable in monthly installments of Rs. 10,20,000/-. The repayment of that loan amount was secured by way of creation of equitable mortgage of property No. D-238, Sector 63, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (U.P.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the secured asset') by the borrower Company. The appellant herein, as is being claimed by the respondent through its Counsel and which fact though not pleaded by the appellant anywhere but not disputed by the appellant's learned Senior Counsel, had also given its Corporate Guarantee for the timely repayment of the loan amount by the borrower Company. Some of the Directors of the appellant Company and the borrower Company are common and members of one family, which fact was not disputed by Mr. Rakesh Tikku, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing of this appeal. They were co-borrowers also and they are Kapil Gupta and Deepali Gupta. That fact, according to Mr. S.N. Relan, learned Counsel for the respondent makes both these Companies one and the same entity as far as the present litigation is concerned which is going on for the recovery of huge amount of money, which as per learned Counsel is 'public money', and both the Companies are trying to misuse the process of law in collusion with each other to avoid repayment of 'public money'. The borrower Company defaulted in repayment of the loan installments as per the terms and conditions of sanction of the loan to it and that led to the declaration of its account as a Non Performing Asset (NPA) and issuance of a demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 17.10.2016 by the respondent herein requiring the borrower Company and Kapil Gupta and Deepali Gupta to clear the entire outstanding dues of Rs. 5,13,55,911/- in lump sum. However, these people did not clear the said demanded amount. The respondent then initiated steps under the provisions of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act as a secured creditor for the enforcement of its secured asset for taking over physical possession thereof to be sold by way of auction so that its sale proceeds to be utilised towards the clearance of its dues recoverable from the borrowers/guarantors/mortgagor.
At that stage the appellant Company, and not the borrower Company, in order to save the mortgaged property from being taken over and auctioned by the respondent started a legal battle by approaching the DRT with a petition under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act which was registered as S.A. No. 274/2017 in DRT-I, Delhi. In that petition which was not filed by the appellant Company in its capacity as the Corporate guarantor, it was claimed by the appellant that it was a tenant in the secured asset of the respondent under the borrower Company M/s. Kayser India Pvt. Ltd. Since 2007 when the said premises was taken on rent for a period often years at a monthly rent of seven lacs of rupees and a security deposit of Rs. 12 lacs was also made with the borrower Company. A registered lease deed was also executed at that time. Before the expiry of the said initial period of lease the lease was further extended for five years on the same terms and conditions. It was claimed that being a lawful tenant in the property in question the appellant could not be evicted therefrom by the respondent by obtaining a warrant of possession from the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on 30.8.2017. The S.A. was filed on 18.9.2017 upon coming to know about the issuance of possession order with police force by the District Magistrate, Noida and that possession was going to be taken on 27.9.2017 by the Receiver appointed by the District Magistrate.
The appellant had also prayed for interim relief against its threatened dispossession from the secured asset, which it was claiming to in its occupation as a lawful tenant. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT-I initially granted interim relief to the appellant herein by passing the following order on 26.9.2017:
"26.9.2017
Present: Mr. Rajeev Mehra, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arvind Sharma, Counsel and Mr. O.P. Mathur, Counsel and Mr. Tarun Khanna, Counsel for the applicant
Mr. S.N. Relan, Counsel along with Mr. Rajesh Jangra, Counsel for the respondent-FI.
Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is tenant in the property in question since the year 2007 and the applicant is paying the rent of Rs. 7.00 lacs every month. He also submits that without going into the merits of the case the applicant is ready to deposit all the EMI with the respondent-FI. He further submits that the applicant shall deposit with the respondent-FI Rs. 7.00 lacs immediately and also deposit Rs. 18.00 lacs by 5.10.2017, Rs. 25.00 lacs by 10.11.2017 and Rs. 25.00 lacs by 31.12.2017.
Learned Senior Advocate also submits that when the entire overdue amount will be paid the applicant will pay regular installment and in between period also.
Learned Counsel for the respondent-FI submits that the claim of the applicant as tenant in the property in question is fake claim and he submits that the director of the applicant company Ms. Deepali Gupta was the director of borrower company of the respondent-FI. He further submits that Ms. Deepali Gupta and Mr. Kapil Gupta who are now the directors of the applicant company were the directors of the borrower company of the respondent-FI when the loan was granted in the year 2014, therefore he submits that the claim of the applicant company as tenant in the property in question as such is not sustainable. He also submits that the applicant has approached the respondent-FI for payment of the dues of the respondent-FI and for the said purposes Ms. Deepali Gupta has tendered cheques pertaining to 30.7.2016, 31.8.2016 and 31.3.2017, however these cheques dishonoured, therefore the respondent-FI took the auction under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. He also submits that request of the borrower company for the repayment of due amount was duly replied by the respondent-FI vide letter dated 30.12.2016 and thereby allowed the time for depositing the remaining EMIs by 31.3.2017 however since the borrower company failed to deposit the same, therefore the respondent-FI took the action under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Learned Counsel for the respondent-FI also submits that recently on 5.9.2017 the borrower company has given a proposal for clearance of outstanding EMI and vide this letter they assured to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.14 crores by 14.9.2017, however the same was not done therefore he submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief. He also submits that in case veil of the borrower company would be lifted then the truth will reveal that two both companies are run by the same family members. Learned Counsel for the respondent-FI submits that prayer for interim relief may be considered on deposit of entire overdue amount including charges and expense i.e. Rs. 1.60 crores.
Heard both sides and prima facie considering the submission of learned Counsel for the respondent-FI that at the time of granting the loan Ms. Deepali Gupta and Mr. Kapil Gupta were the directors of borrower company of the respondent-FI, however now they are the directors of the applicant company who is claiming lessee of the mortgager property, I hereby direct the applicant to deposit with the respondent-FI the entire overdue amount which is around Rs. 1.20 crores excluding expenses and other charges in two instalments. First installment of Rs. 65.00 lacs shall be paid before the date of possession of the property in question and the second installment of remaining amount shall be paid within 15 days thereafter. The applicant is also directed to deposit the regular installment with the respondent-FI.
The respondent-FI/Court Receiver is hereby restrained from taking physical possession of the property in question subject to deposit the above said amount with the respondent-FI.
It is needless to say that in case the applicant fails to deposit the above said amount the respondent-FI shall be at liberty to take the physical possession of the property in question without any further direction of this Tribunal.
Matter be listed on 21.11.2017 before the Registrar for completion of pleadings and thereafter before this Tribunal on 12.1.2018.
Dasti.
Sd/-
(Rekha Dhakar)
Presiding Officer,
DRT-I, Delhi"
The appellant admittedly did not comply with the condition imposed upon it by the DRT while granting interim relief to it vide order dated 26.9.2017. Payment of Rs. 65 lacs, out of the total overdue amount of Rs. 1.20 crores was to be paid before the date of taking of possession which was 27.9.2017, was paid on 13.11.2017. It is the case of the respondent that since the appellant had not made the payments as per the said order of the DRT the respondent proceeded ahead and sealed the mortgaged property on 2.12.2017.
The appellant then filed an application in its pending S.A. for a direction to the respondent herein for de-sealing of the secured asset. The learned DRT rejected that application vide order dated 20.12.2017 which is also re-produced below:
"Dated 20.12.2017
Item No. 20
Present: Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Tarun Khanna and Mr. Om Pal Mathur, Counsel for applicant.
Mr. S.N. Relan and Mr. Rajesh Jangra, Counsel for respondent-FI alongwith Mr. Shailender Singh, officer of the respondent-FI.
IA No. 2069/2017
This application has been filed on behalf applicant praying therein to conduct early hearing of the matter to any prior to 29.12.2017; direct to the respondent-FI to de-seal the premises bearing No. D-238, Sector-63, Noida, Goutam Budh Nagar, U.P. to take appropriate action against the officials of the respondent-FI for taking illegal action against the alleged secured assets, to direct the respondent-FI to accept the balance amount of Rs. 55 lakh along with the amount of two EMIs i.e. Rs. 21.40 in compliance of order dated 26.9.2017 passed by this Tribunal.
During the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant contends that in terms of order dated 26.9.2017 of this Tribunal the applicant has deposited the amount of Rs. 65.00 lakh and also as per his calculation the remaining amount due was Rs. 74.00 lakh and he tried to deposit the same with the respondent-FI however, respondent-FI declined to accept the same and according to the respondent-FI dues were Rs. 81.80 lakh and communication between the parties were going on however, meanwhile officials of the Bank illegally took the possession of the property which will ultimately jeopardise the lives of several workers, who were employed at the sealed premises. Therefore, he contends that to end the controversy, the applicant will deposit amount of Rs. 81.80 and also Rs. 10.00 lakh for the installment due on 27.11.2017 with the respondent-FI.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has produced DD of Rs. 81.80 lakh and also Rs. 10.00 lakh and he prayed that respondent-FI may be directed to accept the same and de-seal the property.
Learned Counsel for the respondent-FI submits that this Tribunal vide order dated 26.9.2017 directed the applicant to deposit first installment of Rs. 65 lakh before the date of possession of the property in question and also further directed to deposit remaining amount by 15 days after deposited the first installments however, the applicant did not adhere to me direction passed by this Tribunal and not deposited the amount of Rs. 65 lakh within the time and also failed to deposit remaining amount by 27.11.2017 therefore, in terms of order dated 26.9.2017 the respondent-FI after giving notice to the applicant took the possession of the property in question. He submits that since applicant failed to comply the order of this Tribunal, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. He also contends that the prayer of de-sealing/restoration of possession is not permissible unless matter may be heard finally. For the said contention, learned Counsel for the respondent-FI relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of Lakshmi Shanker Mills v. Authorized Officer Indian Bank & Ors. (Writ Petition Nos. 37148/2007) and also Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of M/s. Ram Murty Pyara Lal & Ors. v. CBI & Ors. and MA. Pragati Builders and Promoters & Ors. v. M/s. Ram Murty Pyara Lal & Ors. in [W.P. (C) Nos. 13152/2009 & 5317/2010].
Consider the rival submissions.
Admittedly, applicant did not deposit the amount as directed by this Tribunal vide order dated 26.9.2017 therefore, in pursuance to default clause respondent-FI took possession of the property in question. But now applicant came forward with DD of Rs. 81.80 lakh and also Rs. 10.00 lakh and prayed for de-sealing of property in question. In my view, learned Counsel for the respondent-FI has rightly submitted that the prayer for de-sealing is permissible only on the disposal of this SA. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case titled as M/s. Lakshmi Shankar Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Authorised Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank & Ors., (WP No. 37148 of 2007) has held that:
"17 ........................
In the light of the foregoing discussion, we summarise our findings as follows:
(i).......................
(ii)..................................
(iii) The Tribunal has no power to pass any interim mandatory order relating to restoration of possession or restoration of management before the finalization of the proceedings under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act, and
(iv) All such grounds, which rendered the action of the Bank/financial institution illegal, can be raised in the proceedings under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is for the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide in each case whether the action of the Bank/financial institution was in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and legally sustainable."
Therefore, in view of above, prayer for de-sealing at this stage is declined and both sides are directed to complete the pleading expeditiously and matter would be heard finally.
SA
Case be listed before learned Registrar on 29.12.2017 for completion of pleadings and thereafter before this Tribunal on 23.1.2018 for final arguments.
Dasti
Sd/-
(Rekha Dhakar)
Presiding Officer,
DRT-I, Delhi"
Feeling aggrieved by this order the appellant approached this Tribunal with an appeal which was registered as Appeal No. 555/2017 and was finally disposed of vide order dated 11.1.2018 which is also re-produced below:
"After lengthy hearing has taken place today, the learned Counsel for both the sides have arrived at a consensus for the disposal of this appeal by a consent order.
In this case, the appellant had filed a securitization application when respondent-FI was threatening to dispossess it from the property in question which was being claimed to be a secured asset of the financial institution. In that S.A., an interim protection was also sought against dispossession of the appellant and the DRT was pleased to grant that protection subject to appellant making certain deposits within the time-frame fixed by the Tribunal. It appears that there was some default in making payment within the time-frame fixed by the DRT and consequently, the respondent-FI, taking advantage of that, took physical possession and sealed the property in question. Then the appellant approached the DRT for de-sealing of the property. The DRT, however, dismissed that application on the ground that the prayer for re-delivery of the possession of the property in question back to the appellant is not permissible till the final adjudication of the controversy raised by the appellant in its S.A.
The learned Counsel have agreed that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. v. U.O.I. & Ors. Etc., 110 (2004) DLT 665 (SC) : II (2004) BC 397 (SC) : II (2004) SLT 991 : AIR 2004 SC 2371 : (2004) 4 SCC 311, wherein, in Para 80, it has been categorically ruled that DRTs have powers to pass any interim orders, the view of the DRT that it has no powers to pass interim mandatory directions to the secured creditors to return the possession taken during the pendency of the S.A. may not be the correct view as the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to take precedence over any other view taken by any other High Court. As far as the merit of the prayer of the appellant for getting mandatory direction is concerned, the DRT has not gone into that. Therefore, it is agreed that the DRT may be directed to reconsider the appellant's prayer for de-sealing the property in question keeping in view the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemical's case.
I am also of the view that this matter needs to be remanded back to the DRT for a fresh decision on the appellant's prayer for de-sealing of the property in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the DRTs have powers to pass any interim orders.
In view of the aforesaid consensus having been arrived at by the Counsel for the parties, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the DRT for fresh decision limited only to the prayer of the appellant for de-sealing the property in question during the pendency of the S.A. or till decision on its prayer for interim relief which already was granted but it had to be either confirmed after hearing the parties or vacated/modified, which was not done.
An amount of Rs. 92.50 lacs stands paid by the appellant.
This Tribunal has been noticing that once an interim order is passed by the DRT, either ex parte or after notice, without disposing the interim stay application the stay is allowed to continue endlessly while, in fact, the DRTs are expected to dispose of the interim relief prayers, one way or the other, in accordance with law before proceeding to finally decide the merits of the case. This is the practice DRTs should follow invariably and whenever interim orders are passed either in favour of the Bank or in favour of the borrowers/security applicants etc. an effort should be made either to confirm or to vacate/modify those orders after hearing the parties concerned and which exercise should be finished expeditiously keeping in view the fact that DRTs have been established for ensuring speed recovery of public money.
Parties shall now appear before the DRT on 15.1.2018 at 2 p.m.
It is, however, clarified that this Tribunal has not gone into the merit of the claim of the appellant that it is entitled to an order for de-sealing of the property. Merits or demerits of that prayer shall be decided by the DRT uninfluenced by anything observed by the DRT in its impugned order which has today been set aside with the consent of all the parties. It is further clarified that fresh decision, as greed, will be taken on the aforesaid aspect on the basis of averments made in the application of the appellant and reply thereto which already stands filed on behalf of the FI. It is hoped, as requested from both the sides, the DRT will expeditiously dispose of the interim prayer of the appellant for de-sealing of the property.
A copy of this order shall be circulated among the DRTs under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal."
Thereafter, the learned DRT once again heard the parties on the prayer of the appellant for the de-sealing of the secured asset of the respondent and rejected the application vide its order dated 23.1.2018 which is now being challenged by the appellant in the present appeal. That order reads under:
"Today the case is listed order on interim relief.
In terms of direction of Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi dated 11.1.2018 in Misc. Appeal 555/2017 arguments on IA No. 2069/2017 was heard afresh.
This application has been filed on behalf of applicant praying therein to conduct early hearing of the matter and direct to the respondent-FI to de-seal the premises bearing No. D-238, Sector-63, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. to take appropriate action against the officials of the respondent-FI for taking illegal action against the alleged secured assets, to direct the respondent-FI to accept the balance amount of Rs. 55 lakh alongwith the amount to two EMIs i.e. Rs. 21.40 In compliance of order dated 26.9.2017 passed by this Tribunal.
Learned Counsel for both sides contended that the arguments recorded in order dated 20.12.2017 same may be reconsider, except arguments pertaining to the power of this Tribunal for de-sealing.
In view of submissions of both sides the arguments recorded in order dated 20.12.2017 of this Tribunal shall remain part of the present order.
Learned Senior Counsel for applicant contended that the applicant has already paid entire overdue amount and he handing over DD for the installment of January, 2018, therefore, he submitted the respondent may be directed to de-seal the property otherwise not only the applicant but families of his several employees are facing trouble because of the seal of the property in question. He undertakes to deposit the every installment in time in future.
Learned Counsel for the respondent Bank contends that since applicant did not deposit the amount in time, therefore, respondent Bank had taken physical possession of the property in question. However, he submits that now applicant had deposited entire overdue amount.
On perusal of the order sheet of this matter reveals that after considering the submission of both sides, this Tribunal vide order dated 26.9.2017 has directed to applicant to deposit entire overdue amount, relevant portion of the order is reproduced inter alia herein as under:
"5.....I hereby direct the applicant to deposit with the respondent-FI the entire overdue amount which around Rs. 1.20 crores excluding expenses and other charges in two instalments. First installment of Rs. 65 lacs shall be paid before the date of possession of the property in question and the second installment of remaining amount shall be paid within fifteen days thereafter. The applicant is also directed to deposit the regular installment with the respondent-FI."
Admittedly, the applicant did not deposit the first installment of Rs. 65.00 lacs within the time and it further fails to deposit remaining amount within 15 days as directed by this Tribunal. Therefore, in lieu of default clause in the order dated 26.9.2017 of this Tribunal, the respondent-FI took the physical possession of the property in question.
Since the applicant failed to deposit the entire overdue amount within the stipulated period therefore, in my view respondent-FI has rightly taken the possession of the property in question.
In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1997 (139) Company Cases 169 (SC) in the case of Prestige Light v. SBI, it is clearly held that:
"An order passed by a Competent Court -- interim or final -- has to be obeyed without any reservation. Of such order is disobeyed or not complied with, the Court may refuse to hear the party violating such order on merit.
Refusal to hear a party to the proceedings on the merits is a 'drastic step' and such a serious penalty should not be imposed on him except in grave and extraordinary situations, but sometimes such action is needed in the larger interest of justice when a party obtaining interim relief intentionally and deliberately flouts such order by not abiding with the terms and conditions on which a relief is granted by the Court in his favour.
In view of the above interim relief application is hereby declined.
Case be listed for hearing on IA Nos. 71/2018 and 72/2018 on 7.2.2018 meanwhile reply.
Dasti."
The main submission put forth by Mr. Rakesh Tikku, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant was that now the appellant has already made the payments of overdue installments payable by the borrower Company and it was being assured also by the appellant that future installments shall continue to be paid to the respondent without any default the DRT ought to have granted the interim relief to the appellant by directing de-sealing of the property in question where the appellant was carrying on its business activity which has now come to a grinding halt because of the respondent having sealed the same in great haste. Mr. Tikku also submitted that no doubt there was a some delay in making payments which was due to the fact that the appellant was having some doubts about the correctness of the figure of the amount of the overdue installments given by the Bank and so for getting clarification in that regard and after making the payment of Rs. 65 lacs the appellant had approached the Bank and finally paid the amount whatever was considered by the respondent to be overdue installments amount and there was thus substantial compliance of the order of the DRT passed on 26.9.2017. Mr. Tikku submitted that now this Appellate Tribunal should show its magnanimity by directing de-sealing of the property and if that is done the respondent will stand to benefit as it will continue to get payment of future installments of 'public money' regularly which is the main idea behind the enactment of SARFAESI Act and RDDBFI Act, 1993. While making these submissions Mr. Tikku had also submitted that he was not wanting this Tribunal to enter into the controversy whether the tenancy being pressed into service in the S.A. by the appellant is a genuine one, as is the appellant's case or it is a collusive one, as is the case being put forth by the respondent since for the present the respondent's overdue installments stand cleared and rest of the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties before the DRT should be left for adjudication by the DRT in due course.
On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Relan, learned Counsel for the respondent, vehemently opposed grant of any relief to the appellant and prayed for outright rejection of this appeal. It was submitted that the appellant had indulged in patent falsehood by claiming that it was not aware of the loan transaction between the respondent and borrower Company which also is the Company basically owned by the same family members who run the appellant Company. Further that the respondent had sealed its secured asset since the appellant had admittedly failed to comply with the condition imposed upon it by the DRT while granting it interim relief vide earlier order dated 26.9.2017 by not making payments within the time granted by DRT.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to all the facts and circumstances of the case I have come to the conclusion that no case is made out by the appellant for allowing this appeal and setting aside of the order passed by the learned DRT. The appellant had approached the DRT with a categorical stand that it was a lawful tenant of the defaulting borrower Company in the secured asset of the respondent Bank and so it could not be evicted by the respondent by exercising its powers under the SARFAESI Act and further that the landlord Company had not brought to its notice the fact that it had taken loan from the respondent-Financial Institution by mortgaging the premises which had been let out to the appellant way back in the year 2007. That lease was for a period of 10 years and at that time lease deed was executed on behalf of the landlord/borrower Company (which has not been impleaded in the S.A.) by Ms. Deepali Gupta who admittedly is one of the Directors of the appellant Company also besides her husband Kapil Gupta who also is the Director in the appellant Company. Thus, prima facie, it can be said and as was the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent also that the appellant Company and the borrower Company are really not separate Companies having nothing to do with each other and it cannot be accepted that after the expiry of the original lease period when it was allegedly extended for further period of five years by which time the so called landlord of the appellant had taken loan from the respondent by creating equitable mortgage of the alleged tenanted premises the appellant was not aware of that transaction between its landlord and the respondent-Financial Institution. Rightly this point was not pressed into service by me learned Senior Counsel for me appellant before this Tribunal. However, the fact remains that the case of the appellant was founded on the assertion which prima facie was false and that fact itself disentitles the appellant for the grant of the interim relief of desealing of the secured asset of the Bank despite the fact that it has paid overdue installments which the borrower Company was supposed to pay.
Even otherwise also the appellant having failed to pursue its case of 'tenancy' pleaded in the S.A. and offering to discharge part of the liability of the defaulting borrower cannot get any interim relief simply for the reason that overdue installments have been cleared by it. That was the responsibility of the borrower Company which it undisputedly failed to do and therefore the secured creditor had rightly invoked SARFAESI Act. Once a borrower defaults in repayment of Bank's dues which are secured by mortgage etc. and its account is declared as NPA and demand notice is served upon it under Section 13(2) me defaulting borrower has the option either to clear the entire dues as demanded by the Bank or to make a representation as to why it was not liable to make the demanded payment. Here, in this case the borrower is nowhere in the scene and appears to have put in the forefront the appellant Company realising that there will not be any escape route for it itself will jump into the legal battle as far as its liability towards the respondent-Financial Institution is concerned. If at all the borrower Company wanted to fire from the shoulders of its another Company even then the entire loan amount as demanded in the notice under Section 13(2) had to be cleared for saving its mortgaged property. The borrower cannot start a proxy war which prima facie it appears to be doing by utilizing the services of the appellant Company. It was rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that both these Companies are prima facie two sides of the same coin. All these facts disentitle the appellant from getting any interim relief much less a mandatory direction for the desealing of the secured asset of the respondent which it has already taken over.
I have my doubts as to whether DRTs can direct even borrowers to clear the back log and to continue to pay future installments in time which means anytime a defaulter or anyone on its behalf can come to DRT like the appellant here appears' to done and to some extent succeeded also by getting an order from the DRT for deferred payments, and save mortgaged property from being taken over and auctioned by the secured creditor and get the recovery prolonged despite the fact that DRTs are there to ensure speedy recovery of 'public money'. However, I am not giving any final view on this aspect since this appeal can be dismissed for the reasons already given and DRT itself has not granted any further relief to the appellant by condoning the delay in the compliance of its order dated 26.9.2017. This appeal is accordingly dismissed but it is clarified that this appeal has been rejected only on a. prima facie view of the matter since it has arisen out of a miscellaneous order passed by the DRT and the main S.A. is still pending decision which DRT will decide at the appropriate stage uninfluenced by any observation made in this order.