Eider Pwi Communications Ltd. And Ors. vs Canara Bank

J.M. Malik, J

This order shall decide the review petition filed by the appellants in respect of the order dated 18.2.2011 passed by this Tribunal. Vide order dated 18.2.2011, while admitting the appeal under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act, I had directed the appellants to deposit 75% of the principal amount in the sum of Rs. 1,39,31,294/-, minus pendente lite and future interest, within four weeks from the date of that order. The appellants were also permitted to adjust the amount of Rs. 20 lakh which they had already deposited as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It was clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentioned that this is an old case pertaining to O. A. No. 138/2001 and no further opportunity would be granted to the appellants. The appellants were also directed that in case the said order was not complied with, this Court will be constrained to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of the said order. In the meantime, the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Hon'ble High Court heard the appellants and vide its order dated 14.3.2011 rendered the following order:

Counsel for the petitioners seek permission to withdraw this writ petition to move a review application before the D.R.T. Dismissed as withdrawn.

Thereafter, the appellants have moved the instant application for review. In the review petition, the applicants/appellants have averted that this Tribunal had proceeded on the erroneous assumption that since the appellants had deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lakh as per the order dated 12.1.2011 of the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, they could not be said to be paupers or did not have sufficient means to pay. The appellants have explained that, as a matter of fact, the above said sum of Rs. 20 lakh was taken by Eider PW 1 Communications Ltd. as a short-loan from International Institute of Telecom Technology (in short IITT) and has also placed on record a certificate issued by IITT in this respect. The learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the amount of Rs. 20 lakh deposited by the appellants was not from their own funds but from the above said loan taken from IITT.

The second submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that as the WPC (Wireless) Operational licences were not issued by DoT, the company could not start at all. It had not been functional at all, it was defunct and it did not have an employee or a Bank account.

Thirdly, the Counsel for the appellants argued that the appellant No. 2 is a retired IAS officer and he has no source of income except pension and some agricultural income, a large part of which is spent on farm and household expenses. His only residential house bearing No. 3096. Sector 21 -D, Chandigarh was attached by the DRT, Chandigarh in another case in which it was mortgaged with the respondent Bank, which is exempted under Section 60 (ccc), CPC. The learned Counsel for the appellant also invited my attention towards the copy of income-tax return filed which goes to show that his gross income for the year 2009-10 was Rs. 2,22,000/-.

The learned Counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that this petition be considered as a mercy petition and a lenient view be taken.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that this case is hanging fire for the last more than one decade. The order passed by this Court on 18.2.2011 has not been complied with even partly. The appellants were already able to delay it by five months. The Counsel for the Bank pointed out that even if it is assumed that Rs. 20 lakh deposited by the appellants were from the loan taken from the IITT, the IITT should not have released the said sum without taking sufficient security from the company. She also pointed out that appellant No. 2 being a retired IAS officer, his annual income would any way be more than Rs. 2,22,000/-

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, I hereby reduce the condition of depositing 75% of the principal amount to 50%. The appellants are directed to deposit with the Bank 50% of the principal amount in the sum of Rs. 1,39,31,294/-, minus pendente lite and future interest. However, the appellant can adjust Rs. 20 lakh which they deposited pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. The amount be deposited within four weeks from today, failing which the stay granted in their favour shall stand automatically vacated and the Bank can proceed against them as per law. Counter affidavit, if not already filed, be filed by 2.8.2011. Let the case come up on 2.8.2011 for overseeing the compliance of this order and for filing the counter affidavit.