AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J
The petitioner was the successful auction purchaser in an auction proceedings held by the Punjab National Bank, when it initiated the proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. An amount of ₹93.42 lacs was paid by the petitioner to the Punjab National Bank (PNB) with regard to the plant and machinery, which earlier belonged to M/s BBF Industries Ltd., Unit-I, Samba. A sale certificate was also issued by the Bank in favour of the petitioner, which is on record.
It appears that while the petitioner was moving the said plant and machinery from the unit of M/s BBF Industries Ltd., Samba to outside the State, the same was stopped on the basis of communication dated 19.08.2017, issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Samba and another letter dated 22.05.2018, directing the authorities at Lakhanpur not to permit the transportation and shifting of the machinery in question, purportedly on the basis of a complaint submitted by the State Central Labour Union, which highlighted the non-payment of dues to the labour by the erstwhile Manager of M/s BBF Industries.
Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the communications impugned infact defeat the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and subsequently, the right of the petitioner, who was a successful auction purchaser in the proceedings duly conducted under the said Act.
Mr. Kapahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the PNB supports the assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is urged that the Bank had the first charge over the assets of the Unit-M/s BBF Industries Ltd., who had secured a loan from the Bank and therefore, the Bank was within its right to conduct the auction purchase in terms of the SARFAESI Act, which was done in the present case.
There is considerable merit in the assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Bank, who have the first charge being a secured creditor, and, therefore, appears to have conducted the auction proceedings in terms of the SARFAESI Act. In that view of the matter, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Samba had, it appears no jurisdiction to stop the movement of the plant and machinery purchased by the petitioner.
Be that as it may, the communications impugned dated 19.08.2017 & 22.05.2018 are quashed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move the plant and machinery purchased by it outside the State in accordance with rules.
Disposed of accordingly along with connected IA.