AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ranjit Singh, J
On 7th February, 2014 DRT-III. Delhi issued direction to the respondent Bank to take physical possession of the property in question i.e. land and building at place 23 Kaushambi Commercial Complex, Ghaziabad, U.P. preferably with in a period of 30 days from the date of the order. The Tribunal also provided police help to the Bank and SSP/DCP/SHO of the concerned Police Station were directed to provide necessary protection to the respondent Bank. What had prompted the Tribunal below to issue such direction was the conduct of the appellant in defying direction of the Tribunal below. The Tribunal, therefore, had further directed the Director of the company to appear in person.
Subsequently, the appellant moved an application for recall of this order passed on 7th February, 2014. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 3rd March, 2014 found no reason to recall the order dated 7th February, 2014 and dismissed the said application as well.
These two orders have been challenged in this appeal. Before this Tribunal, it was submitted that the appellant could not comply with the directions due to the fact that the Tribunal below had not quantified the overdue amount and hence the payment could not be made by the appellant. This Tribunal was not impressed with the line of submissions at all and accordingly asked the Counsel for the appellant to disclose the amount which as per the appellant was overdue. The Counsel appearing for the appellant at that stage had disclosed that the overdue amount was Rs. 54 lacs. On this basis, option was given to the appellant to deposit this overdue amount. In response, Counsel for the appellant had submitted that a sum of Rs. 24 lacs had already been deposited with the Bank which fact was not disputed by the Counsel appearing for the Bank. Thereafter, Counsel for the appellant made an offer that the appellant would deposit another sum of Rs. 15 lacs on that very date when the appeal was being heard i.e. 7th March, 2014. The Counsel handed over demand draft of Rs. 9 lacs to the Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank and undertook to deposit another demand draft of Rs. 6 lacs on the same day or at least on the following day. In addition, Counsel for the appellant further agreed to handover physical possession of the basement and 4th floor of the property in question. The appellant also undertook to bring perspective buyer for the property which may ultimately lead to discharge of the entire liability outstanding against the appellant. On this understanding, operation of the impugned order was stayed but was made subject to the condition that the respondent Bank would be at liberty to take physical possession of the basement as well as 4th floor of the property in question and that the appellant shall deposit further sum of Rs. 15 lacs with the Bank by 15th April, 2014. The appellant was told to bring a perspective buyer on or before 20th April, 2014 while staying operation of the order.
Instead of complying with the direction as given by this Tribunal on 7th March, 2014 as noted above, the appellant moved an application for extension of time to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lacs which the appellant had failed to deposit as per directions issued on 7th March, 2014. This application came up for hearing on 20th April, 2014. Prayer made in the application was to extend the time to deposit the amount by 45 days. It was also stated that one person was interested in taking the property on rent and the appellant be permitted to give the property on rent so that the liability of the Bank is also discharged from the rent which would be received. The Counsel for the appellant was ready to deposit a cheque of Rs. 2 lacs on that very day and another cheque of Rs. 13 lacs which was dated 30th May, 2014.
After considering the submissions so made, this Tribunal rejected the prayer made in the application for extension of time. The appeal was, however, adjourned for today. Till date no action has been taken by the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lacs. Today, the Counsel submits that he has with him a demand draft of Rs. 9 lacs. The Counsel also states that he has moved an application seeking clarification of the order with a request to de-seal the property, which application is lying under objection. I am surprised and amazed at the brazen attitude show by the appellant. First the appellant had shown a defiant attitude while disobeying the directions passed by the Tribunal below. Still the appellant was afforded chance to save his property. Overdue amount was taken as such as was disclosed by the appellant. Conditional interim order was passed but the appellant did not comply with the directions. His prayer for extension of time to deposit the amount of Rs. 15 lacs was declined on 20th April, 2014. Instead of making the deposit, he sat quietly and today the appellant states to have moved an application for de-sealing the property. The application is not before the Tribunal as it is lying under objection. To me, it appears that this has been purposely done just to buy time. This I can say so because of the nature of objections. The Counsel has not certified the annexure with the application as true copy. Either the appellant considers himself too clever or he is living in fools paradise. Once his prayer for extension of time to make the deposit was declined on 20th April, 2014 how can he expect the Tribunal to allow his prayer for de-sealing. the property when the appellant till date has not complied with the condition imposed in the interim order which was not extended in any manner on 20th April, 2014. The conduct of the appellant is nothing but an attempt to over reach the Tribunal. See his smart way of operating when he even sought permission to rent this property which would have been nothing but creation of a third party interest in the property. The appellant, at every stage, has tried to mislead the Tribunal. Such litigant would not deserve any consideration. Attempt to seek adjournment to remove the defects in the application is firmly declined. Since there is no application pending, the Counsel have been heard in the appeal which is directed against the interim direction given by the Tribunal below. As the appellant has failed to comply with the conditions imposed, there is no reason or cause left or made out for staying the action of the Bank in any manner. The conduct of the appellant otherwise is such which need to be deprecated. The attempt by the Counsel to now hand over draft of Rs. 9 lacs with a request to allow him time to deposit the remaining amount is an uncalled for irritant. Counsel has failed to realize that such a request for extension of time was declined on 20th April, 2014 but he would still make this prayer unmindful of the legal implication. This certainly is not an act of innocence but seems to be a deliberate attempt to some how mislead the judicial Forums. Even at this stage, the Counsel has made prayer for moving an application before the Tribunal below. There has to be some sense of responsibility. Once this Tribunal has declined the prayer, it certainly cannot permit the appellant to seek such a relief from the Tribunal below which had already rejected such prayers The appellant seems to have lost his rights to be heard and so needs to be shown the exit doors. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with a direction to the Bank to proceed with the property immediately in accordance with law.