AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J Gunjal
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner-Company had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,165/- lakhs from respondent No. 1 on 5.10.2004. The petitioner could not run the establishment in as much as because it was under perennial loss, Hence, the proceedings were initiated as against the petitioner by the 1st respondent for recovery of the amount due. It appears originally an application was filed for recovery of the amount and the matter is pending adjudication before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Simultaneously, the 1st respondent has invoked Section 13 of the Securitization & Resconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and accordingly, issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount. The petitioner was required to reply to the said notice u/s 13(2) of the Securitization Act.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said reply was sent, but however, it is the assertion of the 1st respondent that no such reply was received by them. Hence, they have passed an order u/s 13(4) of the Securitization Act. Questioning initiation of the proceedings under the Securitization Act, the petitioner makes an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for condonation of delay. Indeed there was a delay of 267 days in filing the said application. The learned Counsel for the petitioner confirms this fact.
An application is filed for condonation of delay and the said application is considered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and to that, an endorsement is to be found in the order sheet but however, it is the contention of the petitioner that no separate order is passed, even though there is a noting in the order sheet that a separate order is passed. On thorough verification of the records, no such order was found. It is submitted that no separate order io passed. This fact is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. Having regard to the situation, I am of the view that the noting in the order sheet is not a speaking order and the averments made in the application are not considered. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order warrants interference and the matter is required to be reconsidered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the petitioner be put on terms and he may be directed to deposit a sum of 5 crores. He further submits that the outstanding amount due as on today is to the tune of 26 crores. He also submits that the proceedings were initiated as against the petitioner u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the petitioner has been convicted for the same. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal is preferred and the petitioner has also deposited a sum of 50 lakhs with the 1st respondent Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) Petitions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside,
b) The matter is remitted to the Debt Recovery Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Such a concession is extended to the petitioner on his depositing a sum of 2 crores with respondent No. 1-Corporation within a period of 6 weeks from today;
c) The petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 shall take this proceeding as notice to them and shall appear before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 4th July, 2012 without awaiting for further notice.
Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.