Gunveen Singh vs Indian Bank And Ors.

S.N.H. Zaidi, J

Upon mentioning the urgency by Mr. Aggarwal, these matters are being been taken up today. Mr. Relan submits that the order impugned was passed yesterday i.e., on 9.4.2013 and though the appellant has applied for the certified copies of the order impugned, the same have not been received. He prays for and is allowed a week's time to file the same. Applications (IA Nos. 270/2013, 271/2013 and 272/2013) stand dispose of accordingly.

Heard parties' Counsel on admission. These appeals have been directed against a common order dated 9.4.2013 passed on I.A. Nos. 184 to 186/2013 filed in S.A. Nos. 143/2012, 142/2012 and T.S.A. No. 15/2012, whereby the said applications seeking extension of time to deposit the amounts in pursuance of the order dated 7.11.2012 have been dismissed.

Mr. Relan submits that the appellant, who is not a borrower, guarantor or mortgagor but a bona fide purchaser of the property in question, has filed the said S.As. assailing the actions of the Bank and has prayed for the interim relief qua the property in question. He further submits that the Tribunal below, while giving an opportunity to the appellant to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, vide order dated 7.11.2012, had directed him to deposit an amount of Rs. 2 crores in two equal monthly installments to be kept by the Bank in an interest-bearing no lien account. He also submits that the appellant had challenged the said order in appeals (Misc. Appeal Nos. 420/2012, 421/2012, 422/2012) before this Tribunal, but those appeals were dismissed vide order dated 25.2.2013 and two days thereafter the appellant had filed the aforesaid I.As. in the said S.As. before the Tribunal below, seeking extension of time to deposit the said amount, which has been declined by the order impugned. Mr. Relan contends that the appellant is ready to deposit a cheque of Rs. 50 lacs today and he needs some reasonable time to deposit the remaining amount in compliance of the order dated 7.11.2012 of the Tribunal below. According to him, the learned Tribunal below has not properly appreciated the circumstances of the matter in dismissing those I.As.

Ms. Gupta, vehemently opposing the appeals, submits that the Tribunal below has dismissed those applications after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the order impugned does not suffer with any infirmity or illegality as the appellant had utterly failed to comply with the order of the Tribunal below without any justified reason. She also submits that though the Bank was not agreeable to it, yet the Tribunal below, in order to give a chance of settlement to the appellant, had directed him to deposit the said amount within a reasonable time and restrained the Bank from taking any further action qua the property in question and as such he is not entitled to any extension of time. She also points out that the sale notice of the property in question has already been issued and the auction is going to be held on 22.4.2013 and the appellant may participate in that auction and purchase the property.

Mr. Shandilya, adopting the arguments advanced by the Bank's Counsel further adds that the appellant is facing a criminal case (No. C.C. 603/2012) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before Saket Court, Delhi, which shows that he has no sufficient funds in his account to deposit the directed amount.

In rejoinder, Mr. Relan submits that the said criminal case is likely to be compounded as the appellant has already made payment to its complainant. He further submits that the appellant is ready to bring a DD for a substantial amount by Wednesday (i.e. 17.4.2013). I have considered the submissions of the parties' Counsel and have perused the record. I am of the considered view that the order impugned does not suffer with any infirmity or illegality as the learned Tribunal below has considered all the relevant facts and circumstances qua the prayer for extension of time for the compliance of its order and has dismissed the I.As. with a well reasoned order. In my opinion, mere filing of the appeal could not be a ground for the appellants for not complying with the order impugned so long as the operation thereof was not stayed. The appellant has already consumed about four months' time since the order dated 7.11.2012 without complying with that order and he has admittedly not deposited any amount despite filing an undertaking on affidavit before the Tribunal below to comply with the said direction within the given time. The offer to pay a substantial amount, without specifying the exact amount, by Wednesday, also indicates that the appellant has no sufficient funds in his account with which the cheque of Rs. 50 lacs can be cleared. No interference in the order impugned is thus warranted and these appeals, being devoid of any force, are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed in limine.

Copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per law.