AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT
This is an application for taking up the revisional application for early hearing.
Considering the pleadings, CAN 5181 of 2020 is disposed of by taking up the revisional application for consideration.
The revisional application is directed against an order dated August 7, 2020 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A. No. 258 of 2018.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, the S.A. application was dealt with by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on August 7, 2020 and an order was passed in his presence. Such order is at page 97 of the petition. Such order was subsequently corrected on August 7, 2020 at 5.30 p.m. behind the back of the bank. He submits that no order directing maintenance of status quo was passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal when the initial order was passed on August 7, 2020. He submits that, there is a grave illegality in the second order dated August 7, 2020 when the earlier order was sought to be corrected, that too, behind the back of the Bank.
It appears from the records made available to Court that the petitioner herein as the secured creditor invoked the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act, 2002) against the borrower. The borrower applied under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Such application was registered as S.A. No. 258 of 2018. In such proceeding, an order dated August 7, 2020 was passed. The first order on August 7, 2020 allows the borrower to give reasonable/workable/viable one time settlement proposal with upfront money within seven days after consultation with the bank. The bank was directed to consider the same on merit as per R.B.I. guidelines and recovery policies of the bank within reasonable time. The SARFAESI applicant was directed to make a deposit with the bank. The bank was directed to pass a speaking order in the event it rejects the one time settlement proposal.
There is a subsequent order dated August 7, 2020 which is stated to be passed at 5.30 p.m. Such order was passed in absence of the bank. By such order, the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal corrected the earlier order dated August 7, 2020 by directing the parties to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to the order dated August 7, 2020, the SARFAESI applicant made an application for one time settlement dated August 14, 2020. The bank rejected such settlement proposal. The bank did not receive any money along with such proposal.
The court is also informed that the sale is fixed tomorrow. As noted above, the initial order dated August 7, 2020 did not grant any status quo as was subsequently said to be done by the next order on August 7, 2020. Be that as it may, continuance of the order of status quo will not sub‐serve any fruitful purpose. The SARFAESI applicant is yet to deposit any amount with the bank pursuant to the initial order dated August 7, 2020 or otherwise. The one time settlement proposed by the SARFAESI applicant stands rejected by the bank. Therefore, there can be no impediment on the bank proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in accordance with law.
In such circumstances, both the orders dated August 7, 2020 are modified by permitting the bank to proceed against the secured assets in accordance with law.
The revisional application was served upon the opposite parties. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the opposite parties.
In such circumstances, in order to afford another opportunity to the opposite parties, the petitioners will serve a copy of the revisional application afresh on the opposite parties and file affidavit of service to such effect on the next date of hearing.
List the revisional application two weeks hence.