Gnjimpex vs State Bank Of India

S.N.H. Zaidi, J

This appeal impugns the order dated 29.11.2011 of the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi passed on I.A. No. 593/11 filed by the applicant (appellant herein) in SA No. 18/2011 allowing the prayers of the applicant for getting the valuation report of the property in question and for directing the Bank to allow the applicant to bring better buyer for disposal of the property but declining the prayer that the partners of the applicant firm, along with their family members, be allowed to remain in continued occupation of the said property till a suitable buyer is found. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that the respondent Bank had granted EPC and FBP limits of 11.5 crores to the appellant firm in August 2008 but since the account of the firm became irregular, the Bank issued notice dated 17.10.2009 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the Act) claiming an amount of Rs. 11,60,89,076.41. The appellant filed an application (SA No. 18/2011) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, the DRT), under Section 17 of the Act against the action of the Bank. The DRT, qua the interim protection prayed by the appellant, by order dated 7.4.2011, directed the appellant to deposit 2.5 crores in two instalments within the given time. The appellant filed appeal (Appeal No. 202/2011) against that order, but this Tribunal, vide order dated 1.9.2011, dismissed the appeal with a cost of Rs. 20,000. The appellant challenged the order of this Tribunal before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 7467/ 2011, bur later did not press the petition, which was accordingly disposed of, vide order dated 14.10.2011, and the time for deposit of the first instalment was extended up to 30.11.2011 on petitioner's request. The appellant, however, could not make arrangement for deposit of the amount and moved an application (IA No. 593/2011) before the DRT saying that the process of sale of the property in question (Ground floor of residential house No. K-30, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi), may be continued by the Bank and prayed that, (1) the Bank be directed to file the valuation report of the property disclosing its reasonable and/or minimum reserve price; (2) applicant be permitted to bring a suitable buyer; and (3) the partners of the applicant's firm be permitted to continue to occupy and reside in the property in question until a suitable buyer is found. The learned DRT disposed of that application, allowing the Bank to proceed in accordance with law but directing it to permit the applicant to bring better buyer and to provide the valuation report of property but declined the rest of the prayer. The impugned order has only been assailed qua prayer (3), as mentioned above.

I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari and Mr. Pushkar Sood for the appellant and Mr. S.L. Gupta for the respondent Bank and perused the record.

During the course of hearing, an affidavit of Mrs. Ravinder Saluja, a partner of the appellant firm, has been filed with the averments, inter alia, that she is residing in the property in question along with her husband, sons, their wives and children and requires time up to 15th March, 2012 to shift to an alternative accommodation and undertakes to hand over vacant possession thereof by the said date.

Though Mr. Bhandari initially made submissions qua the order impugned but later on he did not press on any of his submissions and by filing the affidavit of Mrs. Ravider Saluja, as mentioned above, prayed for providing some reasonable time to the appellant so that she could shift her household goods and family to some alternative accommodation.

Mr. S.L. Gupta vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant be not given any time for continuing in possession and it did not deserve any indulgence as no amount had been deposited with the Bank till date despite seeking extension of time by the Hon'ble High Court and the Bank had unnecessarily been dragged to litigation before the Tribunals and High Court. He also pointed out that 20.12.2001 had already been notified for taking possession over the property in question.

Considering the submissions of the parties and the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that since indisputably one of the partners of appellant firm is residing in the property in question for the last several years with her family, including minor children, their forcible eviction from the property on 20.12.2001 would definitely cause great hardships to them and since the prayer is only for providing some reasonable time to enable her to shift the family and household goods with an undertaking of peaceful handing over of the vacant possession of the property, the prayer cannot be said to be unjustified and the Bank may proceed with the property in question after some time in accordance with law.

The appellant is accordingly allowed three weeks time, i.e., up to 9th January 2012 to vacate the property in question, subject to Mrs. Ravinder Saluja filing an undertaking-cum-affidavit to the above effect within one week before DRT. Delhi in SA No. 18/2011. She will hand over the keys of the property to the Commissioner of the Court, as it has been informed that the ACMM had appointed Commissioner for taking over the possession of the property in question. It is clarified that no further time shall be allowed and in case of default in vacating the said property by the given time, the Bank will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. A copy of the order be given to the parties and one copy be sent to the DRT concerned.