AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—In this writ petition the Petitioner is seeking a direction to the Respondent - Bank to re-deliver possession of the schedule property.
It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chennai in MA(SA)685/2010. In fact the Debt Recovery Tribunal has passed an interim order on 6th January, 2.011 directing the Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- into the loan account on or before 27.01.2011 and the Authorized Officer is restrained from proceeding further under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') if the said amount is deposited within the time stipulated.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the said interim order a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- is deposited within the time stipulated. It is his contention that since the Petitioner has complied with the interim order passed by depositing a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- in the Bank, the Petitioner may be permitted to run the business. It is the contention of the Petitioner that nearly 159 employees are engaged in the unit which is now forcibly taken over thereby rendering the employee''s un-employed and bringing to halt the Petitioner''s business. With this background, the counsel for the Petitioner submits that a direction be issued to the Bank to put the Petitioner back in possession of the property.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents has resisted the prayer made and has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. Sri Basalingappa Hosamani, to contend that redelivery of possession of the property will arise only if the Tribunal after examining the facts and circumstances of the case comes to the conclusion that measures initiated u/s 13(4) of the Act by the secured creditors were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under
I find considerable force in the submission made by counsel for the Respondent particularly in the light of the judgment referred to herein above.
However, it cannot be lost sight that the action of the Respondent - Bank has resulted in rendering 159 workers un-employed, apart from bringing the entire business of the Petitioner to halt. Therefore, while this Court is not persuaded to issue the direction as sought in the writ petition considering the hard facts and the unemployment of several workers, I am inclined to direct the Appellate Tribunal to examine the matter expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from today so that the controversy can be addressed early and the hardship caused on account of possession having been taken over by the Respondent-bank is legally remedied.
Ordered accordingly.