AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Bhasin, J
Learned Counsel for the appellants says that there are two directors of the appellant No. 1 Company out of whom one is appellant No. 2, Mr. Rajiv Goel, but presently he is in Canada undergoing treatment of cancer. The other director is his wife and she also there with her husband to take care of him and, therefore, they have not appeared in person as directed by this Tribunal. For the reasons being given, for their non-appearance, which I have no reason to doubt, no adverse order is being passed for non-compliance of the said direction for their personal appearance.
As far as the compliance of the condition of pre-deposit for the entertainment of this appeal is concerned, the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants is that they will not be in a position to make pre-deposit of even 25% of the amount of debt determined by the DRT to be payable by them, for the reason of serious sickness of appellant No. 2 besides the financial losses which they have incurred in their business activities.
Since, the appellants have today expressed their inability to make pre-deposit of even 25% of the amount of debt in question, which is the minimum amount up to which this Tribunal can go after waiving the condition of pre-deposit of balance 25% as provided under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, this appeal has, consequently, now become liable to be dismissed as not maintainable/entertainable. This appeal is dismissed accordingly.
In this case, this Tribunal had already issued a show cause notice to the appellants to show cause as to why a Receiver be not appointed to prepare inventories of all the movable items lying inside House No. 64, Sector-9A, Chandigarh and then sold. Now that appeal itself has been dismissed, this Tribunal is of the view that this aspect of the matter may now be left for being examined by the Recovery Officer before whom recovery proceedings are pending and for passing appropriate orders keeping in mind the provision of Sections 25 and 29 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and, therefore, proceedings in that regard would now stand dropped but the same will not be construed as any kind of expression of this Tribunal as to the attachability etc. of all the assets of the certificate debtors of this case.
Since in this case, the recovery certificate was issued in the year 2016, this Tribunal had summoned the Recovery Office's record to find out as to why recovery certificate has remained unexecuted till date and that record has not been received today. However, now that this matter is being closed with the direction to Recovery Officer to ensure execution of the recovery certificate which is for a sum of Rs. 50 crores, as early as possible though in accordance with law. On receipt of copy of this order, the Recovery Officer shall submit a detailed report as to why he has not been able to execute the recovery certificate when apparently CDs have assets to be taken over and auctioned. In case no report of the Recovery Officer is received within three weeks, the Registry shall place the matter before this Tribunal for further appropriate directions to him. These directions are being given to the Recovery Officer in exercise of superintendence power which DRAT exercises over DRTs.
Counsel for the appellants has today submitted that though cost imposed upon appellants on the last date of hearing have not been deposited but now it shall be ensured that cost of Rs. 5,000/- is deposited in Kerala flood victims relief fund through any official channel within two weeks. Let that be done.
Record of the DRT be sent back.