AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Bhasin, Chairperson
The appellants, who are husband and wife, availed of loan facility from the respondent bank but failed to re-pay the same. Their account was declared as an NPA followed by taking over of physical possession their property which they had mortgaged in favour of the respondent no.1 bank to secure the re-payment of loan. When the property was going to be auctioned they approached the DRT with an application under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act challenging the action taken by the bank for sale of their property. During the course of hearing a compromise was arrived at between the bank and the appellants.
2 The DRT disposed of the S.A. as in view of the settlement and following order was passed on 18.10.2018:-
" I.A. No. 1433/2018
After deliberation it has been agreed between the parties that:
(i) In case applicant herein deposit total sum of Rs. 2.0 crore including Rs. 15.0 lac with the respondent no.1 by 02.11.2018 by 5 pm and respondent no.1 will close the entire action of the bank qua the property in question, however, it is also agreed that in case applicant fails to deposit the amount of Rs. 2.0 crore by 02.11.2018, the respondent no.1 will confirm the sale of the property in question and proceed further under SARFAESI Act.
(ii) It is also agreed that the auction which is scheduled on 20.10.2018 shall continue, however, respondent no.1 will not receive the remaining amount except the EMD till 02.11.2018 from the scheduled bidder.
(iii) It is also agreed that on deposit of Rs. 2.0 crore bank will refund the EMD to the bidders.
(iv) It is further agreed that in case applicant herein fails to deposit the amount of Rs. 2.0 crore, bank will confirm the sale and receive remaining amount from the successful bidder.
In the light of above terms and condition arrived at between the parties, now nothing survives in the SA. Hence this SA along with pending IA stands disposed off accordingly.
File be closed and consigned to record room."
The appellants failed to make the payment as per the settlement and in the decided S.A. they moved an application for extension of time. That application being I.A. No. 131/2018 was rejected by the DRT by the following order dated 15.3.2019:-
"By way of the present MA, the applicant prayed to extend the time of remaining payment for the period of 30 days from today.
Heard on this MA.
Since the applicant did not adhere the conditions of the settlement which is entered between the parties, therefore, any modification in the same could be done with the agreement between the parties however, respondent is not ready for further extension therefore, there is no merit in the present MA and same is hereby dismissed.
File be closed and consigned to record room."
Appellants have felt aggrieved by the order of rejection of their request for extension of time to comply with the order dated 18. 10.2018 and have filed the present appeal.
Both sides have argued orally and have filed written submissions also.
I have gone through the written submissions and also their oral submissions. The appellants have cited some judgments but none of them helps them as they are dealing with the right of redemption. Here the appellants themselves settled with the bank and agreed to pay settled amount but failed to pay within time. They got their S.A. disposed of as settled without waiting for the DRT to give verdict on merits. After disposal of the S.A. the DRT became functus officio and it could not have given any relief to the appellants. If such like applications are entertained after final order there will never be recovery be possible. This appeal is thus liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
In fact, in the written arguments the appellants have tried to re-open the entire case by alleging fraud on the part of bank. If they wanted to establish fraud etc. they should have allowed the DRT to decide the case on merits instead of compromising with the bank. There is thus no merit in this appeal.
The appeal, thus, is dismissed.