Meena Pandey And Ors. vs Central Bank Of India

S.N.H. Zaidi, J

Mr. Chaudhary submits that the Delhi High Court vide order dated 9.10.2013 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2454/2013, has directed that this appeal be heard on the basis of the deposit already made by the appellant with the Bank, as such the waiver application (I.A. No. 255/2013) has become infructuous. In view of the submission of Mr. Chaudhary, the application stands disposed of accordingly. Heard parties' Counsel on admission. This appeal has been directed against an interim order dated 7.3.2013 passed in the S.A. whereby the Tribunal below has restrained the respondent Bank from taking the physical possession of the property in question subject to deposit by the appellants of the remaining amount, as per the settlement letter dated 4.12.2012, before 15.4.2013, out of which 50% was to be deposited by 31.3.2013.

Mr. Chaudhary points out that a C.C. Limit of Rs. 98 lacs was sanctioned by the Bank to M/s. RKP Enterprise, a sole proprietorship firm of the appellant's husband, for which the appellant had stood as a guarantor and had also mortgaged her property with the Bank; that the borrower had received a notice dated 13.3.2012 from the Bank's Counsel intimating that the account was running irregular and had become overdue by Rs. 34.50 lacs and it was asked to deposit the overdue amount failing which the account would be classified as NPA; that the borrower thereafter received a demand notice dated 5.5.2012, issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, claiming an amount of Rs. 1,39,73,503/- stating that the account had been classified as NPA but the date of NPA was not disclosed; that when the Bank initiated measures under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and took symbolic possession of the mortgaged properties, the appellant filed the S.A. and the learned Tribunal below granted interim protection on the condition of deposit of Rs. 30 lacs with the Bank, which the appellant could not comply in full and only Rs. 2 lacs were deposited; that the borrower thereafter approached the Bank and a settlement was arrived at on deposit of Rs. 66 lacs and interest towards overdue amount vide letter dated 4.12.2012 and the Bank had agreed to regularise the account after the deposit of the said amount; that the said amount was to be deposited in a phased manner and the last instalment was to be paid by 25.3.2013; that the appellant failed to adhere to the payment schedule and could deposit only a sum of Rs. 23 lacs; that when the Bank approached the CMM under Section 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the mortgaged properties, the appellant again approached the Tribunal below by filing interim application seeking a restraint order against the Bank from taking forcible possession of both the mortgaged properties and sought extension of time for depositing the balance settlement amount and the learned Tribunal below has allowed the time up to 15.4.2013 by the order impugned subject to deposit of the entire remaining amount as per the settlement letter, with a direction that 50% of the amount to be deposited by 31.3.2013.

Mr. Chaudhary contends that the S.A. is pending disposal before the Tribunal and in para 4 of the reply filed by the Bank, the space for mentioning the date of NPA has been left blank, His further contention is that the account in question was wrongly classified as NPA and the Bank had not complied with the requirement of Section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act as detail of the secured asset were not given in the demand notice and the Bank had applied the interest as well as penal interest even after the alleged classification of the account as NPA, which is against the RBI guidelines. He also submits that till this date the appellant has deposited Rs. 45.94 lacs with the Bank. According to him, the Tribunal below has committed error in not granting sufficient time for making the payment of the balance settlement amount which the appellant is ready to deposit in three instalments within 90 days.

Mr. Jain, on the other hand, contends that the account in question was classified as NPA on 31.3.2012 as it remained irregular for much more than 90 days prior to that date and it was rightly classified as NPA. He submits the statement of account shows that certain payments were made by the borrower through cheques and the amount thereof were duly credited but when all those cheques were dishonoured, the credit entries were reversed and the appellant cannot take the benefit of those credit entries. He also submits that the order impugned clearly shows that the appellant had asked for the extension of time for payment of amount only up till 15.4.2013, which was allowed, as such the appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved of the said order and she has no cause of action for this appeal qua the said order. Mr. Jain further contends that the S.A. is pending disposal before the Tribunal below where in all the issues raised by the appellant shall be considered and adjudicated upon and since appeal has been directed against an interim order wherein no legal infirmity or illegality has been pointed out by the appellant, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions of the parties' Counsel and have gone through the documents pointed out by the parties' Counsel. The Hon'ble High Court, in the writ petition filed against the order dated 2.4.2013 of this Tribunal, has restrained the Bank from taking any coercive steps qua the property in question, which is continuing up till this date. The respondent Bank had claimed an amount of about Rs. 1.39 crores through the demand notice dated 5.5.2012 and the appellant has deposited Rs. 45.94 lacs subsequent thereto. A huge amount is still outstanding. The borrower and the appellant have already defaulted twice in depositing the amount; firstly, when the borrowers had failed to adhere to the payment schedule as per the settlement letter dated 4.12.2012 and secondly, when the Tribunal below has allowed time to make the payment of the remaining settlement amount, as was asked for by the appellant. The issues relating to the classification of the account as NPA or to the measures taken by the Bank for enforcing its security interest are yet to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal below and it would not be appropriate to express any opinion qua those issues by this Tribunal. In my considered view, the order impugned does not suffer with any illegality or legal infirmity and the appellant is not entitled to any further indulgence for extension of time for making the deposit of amount. In view of above, this appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties as per law.