AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner-company is represented by a Director, Sukanta Bhowmick, appearing in person. Mr. Bhowmick represents that he is one of the two
Directors of the petitioner-company and he owns and controls 90 per cent of the paid-up capital of the petitioner-company and, for all practical
purposes, is the owner of the business run through the instrumentality of the petitioner-company. According to Mr. Bhowmick, the only other Director
of the petitionercompany is one Prabir Chakraborty, who is a salaried employee of the petitioner-company.
The opposite party-bank is represented by Mr. Rohit Swaroop, Chief Manager of the Upper Wood Street Branch of the IndusInd Bank Limited. The
petition arises out of proceedings instituted under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 upon the bank taking steps under such Act following the petitionercompany’s failure to repay the loan obtained from the bank.
By an order dated September 23, 2015, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Kolkata found that the amount due from the petitioner to the opposite party-
bank as at the date of the order was approximately Rs.90 lakh. The petitionercompany was directed to pay off 50 per cent of such amount within two
months in instalments of Rs.25 lakh and 20 lakh, respectively. However, the order dated September 23, 2015 did not provide the mode and manner of
payment of the balance amount and the parties were left free to arrive at some form of agreement in such regard.
It appears from the relevant order that the secured asset had been taken possession by the bank and the order directed the bank to make over
possession of the secured asset to the petitioner herein upon the first tranche of Rs.25 lakh being deposited within a month of such order. It is the
admitted position that by October 16, 2015, a payment of Rs. 25 lakh was made by or on behalf of the petitioner-company and the secured asset was
returned to the petitioner-company. The secured asset is a Bar-cum- Restaurant, the possession whereof had been taken over by the bank and which
possession was returned to the petitioner-company on payment of the said sum of Rs. 25 lakh in terms of the order dated September 23, 2015.
However, by reason of the subsequent default on the part of the petitioner to make the balance payment, the bank has repossessed the property. The
bank is at present in possession of such property.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that out of the sum of Rs. 90 lakh found to be due by the order dated September 23, 2015, a sum of Rs. 51
lakh has already been paid and, as such, the petitioner should afforded some time to pay off the balance Rs.39 lakh with some nominal interest. When
this matter appeared on a previous occasion and the principal parties were represented in person through the same personnel, the Court had requested
the bank to come up with a proposal that would take care of the bank’s interest while allowing the petitioner-company to resume its business. On
behalf of the bank, Mr. Swaroop says that if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 55 lakh over a period of six months from now, the bank would be
agreeable to close the matter.
However, Mr. Swaroop says that if the possession of the immovable property is to be made over to the petitioner or its agents, there should be a strict
default clause that would allow the bank to repossess the property upon any default committed in making the balance payment. Mr. Bhowmick says
that it may not be possible to pay off about Rs. 10 lakh a month after re-opening the small outlet. He seeks a year’s time to pay off the amount
and also seeks a reduction of the quantum sought by the bank on account of interest. At the suggestion of the Court, the petitioner-company through
its appearing Director and the opposite party bank through its Chief Manager have agreed as follows:
i) that the petitioner will be liable to pay a further sum of Rs. 56 lakh over the next year or so in full and final satisfaction of the bank’s claim; ii)
that a demand draft of Rs.10 lakh handed over by Mr. Bhowmick to Mr. Swaroop in court today would immediately be adjusted against the agreed
balance outstanding of Rs.56 lakh such that the amount payable by the petitioner for the next 12 months stands reduced to Rs. 46 lakh; iii) this balance
sum of Rs. 46 lakh will be paid off in 12 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 3.84 lakh each, payable on or before the 27th days of the next 12 months; or,
in other words, beginning May 27, 2018, the petitioner will be liable to pay a monthly amount of Rs. 3.84 lakh by such date and for the next 11 months
for the transaction between the parties to be treated as closed ; iv) in view of the immediate payment of a sum of Rs. 10 lakh, the bank will ensure
that possession of premises No. 401 (P-5) Ajoy Nagar, Santoshpur, Kolkata-700075 is handed over to Mr. Bhowmick as a Director of the petitioner-
company during working hours of April 30, 2018, subject to the instrument for payment tendered in Court today being encashed by then;
v) in the event the instrument for payment tendered in Court today is not encashed upon presentation, no further effect will be given to this agreement
between the parties and the bank will be at liberty to proceed to sell the property in accordance with law; vi) in default of payment of any one of the
12 instalments referred to above, the bank will be entitled to take possession of the said property in Santoshpur without further reference to any court
and with police assistance, if necessary; and a written assertion by the bank seven days after the date of default that the petitionercompany is in
default should prompt the Officerin-charge of the relevant Police Station to provide adequate assistance to the bank to take possession of the property;
vii) in case of default, the bank will no longer be bound by the concession recorded in this agreement and order and will be entitled to claim interest in
accordance with the original agreement between the parties after giving credit to the amount received in terms of this order; viii) in case the entire
amount is paid off in terms of the agreement and this order, the petitionercompany will have no liability to the opposite party-bank in respect of the
matters for which steps were taken under the said Act of 2002 which gave rise to the proceedings before the DRT-III, Kolkata in T S A 345/2015.
C.O. 4152 of 2017 is disposed of on the above basis. There will be no order as to costs.