AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Bhasin, J
The appellant Company which was into the business of providing onshore/off shore Rigs with Crew to oil exploration & production Companies, was one of the defendants in an Original Application (O.A.) filed on 22.04.2013 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (DRT) by the respondent No. 1, Punjab National Bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short 'RDDBFI Act') for recovery of its dues arising out of loan facilities falling under different categories. These facilities were availed of by the appellant, which was into the business of providing on-shore/off shore Rigs with Crew to oil exploration & production Companies, for purchasing '1500 HP Rig with crew' used for oil/gas exploration etc. The appellant was sanctioned by respondent No. 1 bank term loan of Rs. 15.90 crores in June, 2009. Foreign currency loan of US Dollars 15.21 million was also given to it in February, 2010. In March, 2010 respondent No. 1 bank granted further term loan of Rs. 2.50 crores. The said facilities availed of by the appellant were secured by personal guarantees of respondents 2 to 5 herein as well as by way of hypothecation of 1500 HP Rig procured by the appellant with the finances provided by respondent No. 1 bank and imported under the Foreign Letter of Credit.
Since the appellant failed to repay the dues of the respondent No. 1 bank in respect of the aforesaid financial facilities sanctioned in its favour its accounts were declared Non Performing Assets in December,2010 and thereafter respondent No. 1 bank filed application under Section 19 of RDDBFI Act before the DRT for recovery of its dues. The appellant was impleaded as defendant No. 1 being the principal debtor and respondents 2-5 were impleaded being guarantors. Central Bank of India was also impleaded in the O.A. as defendant No. 6 since it also was claiming a charge over the said 1500 HP Rig because of it also having granted some financial assistance to the appellant herein.
Except defendants No. 5 and 6 none of the other defendants including the present appellant in the O.A. had filed any written statement and in fact the matter had proceeded ex parte against other defendants after their service.
It appears that while staying away from the O.A. proceedings the appellant was trying to settle the dues of both the banks. M/s. Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 3 herein, appears to have been associated by the appellant to enable clearance of the dues of the banks. Respondent No. 3 paid Rs. 8 crores to the appellant sometime in the year 2015 as per their mutual understanding. There was a settlement between the appellant and Punjab National Bank sometime in June, 2015 whereunder Punjab National Bank agreed to accept Rs. 35 crores from the appellant to close its loan chapter. The payments which was to be made by the appellant as per the settlement, however, was not made by the appellant to Punjab National Bank within the agreed time period. The appellant then arrived at a written agreement with one M/s. Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. on 15th March, 2016 for sale of the hypothecated 1500 HP Rig for a sum of Rs. 42.50 crores after making the payments as per the settlement terms to the bank and then to get the ownership of the hypothecated equipment. The respondent No. 1 was then approached again for revival of the settlement which it agreed to revive subject to the appellant paying additional interest of Rs. 1.25 crores.
United Bank of India also agreed to settle with the appellant for a sum of Rs. 10 crores. As per the case of the Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. the appellant had written separate letters dated 15th March, 2016 to both the banks giving its No Objection for transfer of ownership and possession of the hypothecated Rig to Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. upon clearance of the dues of the banks.
The two banks were paid their dues as per the settlements with the appellant. It appears that since the matter was pending before DRT Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. thought it appropriate to get necessary directions from DRT to both the banks to release their charge over the hypothecated 1500 HP Rig and to give its possession to it. So, M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. claiming to have made the payments to the banks in terms of the settlement with the two banks and armed with agreement dated 15th March, 2016 entered into by it with the appellant herein for purchase of the hypothecated equipment, in which agreement the appellant had allegedly agreed that the M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. could get the hypothecated equipment and all related documents released from the banks and get its possession also, moved an intervention application(being IA No. 460 of 2016) in the pending O.A. of Punjab National Bank before DRT-II. That application as well as the O.A. itself were disposed of by the DRT vide order passed on 10.06.2016 which is reproduced below:-
"Dated 10.6.2016
Present - Sh. Pallav Saxena alongwith Sh. Kamal Kishore, counsel for the applicant bank
Sh. Vikram D. Chauhan, counsel for defendant No. 5
Sh. S.S. Lingwal, counsel for the defendant No. 6/UBI
Sh. Rahul Sripat, counsel for the intervener
Heard both sides. It is submitted that the intervener has paid Rs. 35.00 crores and Rs. 1.25 crores totalling to Rs. 36.25 crores towards the dues of defendant No. 1 to the PNB in terms of settlement. It is further submitted by the counsel for the intervener that in view of the above facts the applicant PNB and defendant No. 6/UBI be directed to handover possession of 1500 HP Rig alongwith all attachments and necessary documents to the intervener/applicant in I.A. No. 460/2016. The counsel for the applicant PNB submits that PNB has received Rs. 36.25 lacs towards dues of defendant No. 1 as per settlement. In view of these circumstances the intervener is entitled for return of equipment. Thus, the applicant PNB is directed to hand over possession of 1500 HP Rig to the Pavanama Drilling Private Ltd/applicant in I.A. No. 460/2016 forthwith. In so far as claim of defendant No. 6/UBI is concerned it is submitted that OA No. 355/11 is pending before one of the DRT in Bangalore (Karnataka). The intervener/applicant is at liberty to approach the said Tribunal for other relief. With these observations IA No. 460/2016 and IA No. 461/2016 are closed.
Since the claim of the applicant bank is settled. Applicant seeks withdrawal of this OA. Permission granted. OA No. 142/2013 is dismissed as withdrawn.
The date already fixed in the matter i.e. 25/7/2016 is cancelled. File be consigned to record.
Sd/-
(G.V.K. Raju)
Presiding Officer,
DRT-II, Delhi"
Thereafter on 14.07.2016 the appellant moved an application(being M.A. No. 66/16 before the DRT in the withdrawn O.A. of Punjab National Bank seeking re-call of the aforesaid order dated 10th June,2016 claiming that it had come to know on 14.07.2016 during the visit of its representative to the bank about the direction of DRT for the release of 1500 HP Rig to Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. It was claimed in that application, and even before this tribunal same submissions were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the DRT could not have ordered release of the hypothecated equipment in favour of the third party Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and that too without any notice to appellant. It was further averred that there were some disputes which had cropped up between the appellant and Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the agreement of sale of hypothecated Rig by the appellant to the said Company and those disputes had to be settled by a civil court only. It was also averred that "Merely depositing an amount would not entitle any third party to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal under the provisions of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993 to get over the possession of the hypothecated assets ....... ". It was also pleaded that the said Company even otherwise could not have approached the DRT for the relief which had been granted to it vide impugned order dated 10.06.2016.
After notice to the opposite sides, including M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd., (respondent No. 3 in this appeal) and hearing arguments the DRT dismissed the application of the appellant vide order dated 19.08.2016 which is now under challenge in the present appeal and which order is also re-produced below:-
"1) The first defendant filed this petition under section 19(25), under section 22 of Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, RDDBFI Act) to recall the order dated 10/6/2016 passed by this Tribunal.
2) Brief case of the miscellaneous applicant/defendant No. 1's case is as follows:
3) The applicant submits that on an application filed by M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. to direct the applicant bank and respondent No. 6 i.e. United Bank of India to hand over possession of the machine alongwith attachments and documents, and the M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. intervener has not complied terms and conditions of agreement dealing under M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and the disputes between M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. has to the adjudicated by Civil Court but there appears collusion between the official of the applicant bank and M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and no notice was issued by the applicant bank to Defendant No. 1 as to deposit made by the intervener and no notice of the application was issued and, as such, order dated 10/6/2016 is liable to be re-called. Hence, this application.
4) The intervener M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. filed reply contending that O.A. is of the year 2013 and as per the order dated 2/5/2014 passed by the Tribunal defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 3 were proceeded ex-parte and the present application filed by defendant No. 1 is clear abuse and misuse of the process and by the efforts of defendant No. 4, Tribunal granted liberty for settlement outside the Court vide order dated 5/4/2016. The applicant bank settled the dues at 35 crores and the time was extended vide letter of the applicant bank dated 2/5/2016. The intervener further submits that defendant No. 1 written to the applicant bank and defendant No. 6 bank on 15/3/2016 giving them their no objection for the transfer of title and possession of the 1500 HP Rig to the intervener and on 15/3/2016 defendant executed the deed of sale which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar at Bengaluru and of the aforesaid documents was brought before this Tribunal of the entire amount has been paid under deed of sale and applicant bank and the defendant No. 6 on behalf of defendant give in writing for the transfer of the title & possession and entire amount was paid to the banks and to blackmail the interveners the present petition was filed and there was no merits in the M.A. and the same may be dismissed.
5) The applicant bank also filed its reply on the same lines as that of intervener.
6) Heard both sides.
7) Now the point for consideration is whether the defendant is entitled for recall of the order dated 10/6/2016 as prayed for.
8) In the present case a perusal of O.A. record shows that defendant No. 1 to 3 remained ex-parte and no petition was filed by defendant No. 1 to 3 to set aside the ex-parte order. While so on 10/6/2016 that the applicant bank submits that intervener has paid Rs. 35 crores and Rs. 1.25 crores totalling Rs. 36.25 crores towards the debt due by the defendant No. 1 to PNB in terms of settlements and it is further submitted by the counsel for intervener that PNB and Union Bank of India directed to handover possession of 1500 HP attachment of the necessary documents to the intervener in I.A. As banks have submitted no objection, the order was passed in the I.A. for direction to handover the possession to the intervener who paid Rs. 36.25 crores on behalf of the defendant No. 1. After the order was passed, defendant No. 1 came up with the present miscellaneous application that the said order is to be re-called. Presently, defendant No. 1 remained ex-partein the O.A. proceedings and he cannot be expected any notice of interlocutory applications. Further in the reply of both Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. as well as Punjab National Bank, it is alleged that defendant No. 1 suppressed the fact of execution of agreement of acquisition of assets dated 15/3/2016 and NOC of dated 15/3/2016 agreement dated 15/3/2016. Further it is specifically stated in the reply of the both respondents that defendant No. 1 authorized the applicant bank to receive the settlement amount from the Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and conveyed the document of title of the Rig and possession thereof to Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. The defendant No. 1 did not file any rejoinder to the contents by the respondent in their counter as to the defendant No. 1 executing the letter dated 15/3/2016 giving N.O.C. for the transfer of the rig to Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd.
9) Thus, the first defendant miscellaneous applicant is guilty of suppression of facts and filed this application on untenable grounds. There are no merits in M.A. and M.A. dismissed with cost.
Sd/-
(G.V.K. Raju)
Presiding Officer
DRT-II, Delhi"
Mr. Sanjiv Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the DRT went totally wrong in giving the direction for the release of the hypothecated 1500 HP Rig to respondent No. 3 herein without giving any notice of the application which had been filed by it for getting the hypothecated equipment, which admittedly was owned by the appellant, released in its favour and in that process the Banks had colluded with the respondent No. 3 by not telling the DRT that notice of that application of the Company seeking intervention and whose intervention request had not even been allowed so far, ought to be given to the appellant herein being the owner of the equipment and that too despite the fact that it was earlier to that not appearing in the proceedings and was ex parte. Mr. Bhandari contended that the letters relied upon the banks addressed to them by the appellants and purporting to have been written on 15.03.2016 were in fact not written on 15.03.2016 and were written at the time of earlier settlement with the bank and oral understanding with Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. at that time, which settlement had failed and that was evident from the fact that the date of '15.03.2016' on these letters were handwritten while in all other documents the dates were typed and the banks and Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. in collusion had utilised those letters in favour of the said Company's case that the appellant had beforehand authorised the said Company as well as the banks to close the loan files and to release the hypothecated equipment in favour of the said Company without involving the appellant. Counsel submitted that in case those letters were actually written on 15.03.2016, when the agreement of that dated was executed and which registered document, then the two letters would also have been got registered. Those letters were, as per the grievance of the appellant, also used before the DRT to get the impugned direction from the DRT for the release of the equipment in favour of Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. It was also submitted that those letters in any case could not be utilised by Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. for moving of any application before the DRT. Why at all application was moved before DRT by Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. was also a mystery, according to the appellant's case since if the two letters were genuine documents written on 15.03.2016 and not earlier to that date, as was being claimed by the appellant, the Banks themselves would have released their charge over the hypothecated equipment instead of joining hands with Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. for getting green signal from the DRT so that in future no controversy about the release of the equipment in favour of the said Company arises at the instance of anyone. According to Mr. Bhandariyje transaction of sale of hypothecated equipment between the appellant and Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. was absolutely an independent transaction between the two of them and the same could not even be considered by the DRT for any purpose and if at all Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. felt aggrieved with the appellant backing out from that deal it could only have recourse to any legal remedy before Civil Court or of arbitration to get back is money or to claim compensation etc. but certainly it could not have approached the DRT for any relief which was it was claiming and which was in the nature of a claim for specific performance of agreement to sell. According to the appellant the entire episode before the DRT was a hush hush affair and patent collusion between the respondent No. 1 bank and Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. is clear from the fact that though the latter's application was to be taken up on 25.07.2016 but then mysteriously that application came to be taken up by the Presiding Officer on 10.06.2016 when even the bank's counsel also had appeared in Court without any notice even having been issued for that date and the impugned order came to be passed by the Presiding Officer directing the release of the hypothecated equipment in favour of the Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. That shows, according to Mr. Bhandari, the haste with which these colluding parties were moving to get an order for the release of the hypothecated equipment from DRT. Another act of collusion pointed out was that even though the deadline for deposit of settlement amount with the bank was 20.03.2016 within which Pavamana Drilling Pvt. had not made the payment still the bank ignored that default and accepted the settlement and the bank's advocate appeared in Court and withdrew the O.A. Thus, according to the appellant the orders passed by the DRT firstly on 10.06.2016 directing the Bank to release the equipment in favour Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and then on 19.08.2016 rejecting the appellant's application seeking re-call of that order vide impugned order dated 19th August,2016, are liable to be set aside but only to the extent of giving of the direction regarding release of the equipment in favour of Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and as far as the withdrawal of the O.A. by Punjab National Bank is concerned the appellant has obviously no grievance with that withdrawal which according to the appellant the bank had done at its own risk and peril and in utter haste only in order to help Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. in getting the impugned direction in its favour from the DRT.
This appeal has been opposed by the two banks as well as Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. All the parties submitted written arguments as well.
From the aforesaid narration of the background facts the significant and undisputed facts which emerge is that the appellant did not want to contest the claim of the Punjab National Bank before the DRT and it always wanted to settle the disputes with the bank as otherwise it would have prayed for setting aside of the initial order of the DRT passed in the O.A. whereby it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte and the permission to contest the bank's claim by filing its written statement.
Another facts which appears to me to be not in dispute is the fact that the appellant because of financial crisis was not in a position to settle with thanks on its own and so it had thought of associating some third party which could pay money to be paid to the banks in the event of their agreeing to settle with the appellant. M/s. Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 3 herein, appears to have come forward to rescue the appellant and then sometime in 2015 Punjab National Bank agreed to settle the matter with the appellant upon payment of Rs. 35 crores. However, that money was not paid by the appellant as per the settlement terms and so the settlement was not acted upon at that time. Then in 2016 Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. agreed to purchase the hypothecated equipment for a price which in turn could be used by the appellant in getting rid of the banks' claims. As noticed already, an agreement dated 15th March, 2016 was then executed between the appellant and Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. whereunder this Company coming forward to the rescue of the appellant agreed to purchase the hypothecated Rig of 1500 HP for Rs. 42.50 crores and to facilitate the OTS and to relieve the appellant and its guarantors of their obligations towards the two creditor banks.
It is everybody's case that the appellant's accounts with both the banks now stand cleared and Punjab National Bank has already withdrawn its O.A. from the DRT and as far as United Bank of India is concerned it has moved an application before this tribunal that the appellant is yet to comply with some formalities even though the settlement amount of Rs. 10 crores stands paid to it.
As far as Punjab National Bank is concerned it is also relying upon the letter dated 15th March, 2016 addressed to it by the appellant authorised it to transfer and release the hypothecated equipment in favour of Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. in view of the settlement with the bank and the agreement of sale of hypothecated equipment between the appellant and the said Company which of course was subject to clearance of the bank's dues by the said Company as per the settlement terms. It is undisputed that the money under the OTS stood paid to the Banks. There are vague pleas as to in what manner exactly money was paid to Punjab National Bank bit to me it appears that the money was routed through the bank account of the appellant in which it was deposited by transfer from the account which Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. was also having with Punjab National Bank. It is the case of Punjab National Bank that it had dealt with Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. as per the command of its borrower, the appellant herein and after receiving its dues the Bank itself could have legally released its charge over the hypothecated equipment but as Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. had moved the DRT, perhaps to be doubly assured that after having shelled out over forty crores it gets the equipment it had purchased and which deal had benefited the appellant to a great extent inasmuch as it got relieved of its enormous liability towards Punjab National Bank for a small amount, the Bank did not oppose the application and since the Bank's claim had stood cleared the O.A. was also withdrawn. Mr. Saxena also contended that it is not that everything between the bank and Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. had happened in a hush hush manner keeping the appellant-borrower in the dark and in fact the email for revival of the OTS sent by the bank to the appellant-borrower was endorsed to Pallavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. also and so the appellant was very much kept informed what all was transpiring regarding the OTS and at that time it never objected that agreement with Pallavama had failed and the appellant was withdrawing its consent for release of the hypothecated equipment to the said third party and no such case was pleaded by the appellant even before the DRT that despite the bank having been instructed by it not to go ahead with the settlement and release of hypothecated equipment etc. the bank had ignored those instructions of the appellant. It also appears to be the contention that the appellant has challenged the decisions of the DRT without realising the consequence which may flow and that consequence was that it can become liable to pay the entire claim amount of the bank since there is no defence put forwarded by it in the O.A. and if the impugned order is recalled then the O.A. will also get revived as that was withdrawn not because the bank had given up its claim in the O.A. but because of the settlement with the borrower and the bank will become entitled to appropriate the payments received by it under the settlement and the balance will also become payable by the appellant.
In these sent circumstances, Mr. Pallav Saxena, learned counsel defending the actions of the Punjab National Bank in not opposing the application of Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. before the DRT, had submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned direction given by the DRT to the Bank to release the hypothecated equipment to Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Ashok Bhasin, learned senior counsel for Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. also defended the orders passed by the DRT on almost the same grounds which were urged on behalf of Punjab National Bank. Additionally it was argued that why should the appellant be heard at all by this tribunal without requiring him to pay even a single rupee from its own pocket. Mr. Bhasin also contended that the appellant has simply been harping upon the plea of alleged breach of sale agreement dated 15th March,2016 without in any way specifying as what breach had been committed by Pavammana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and how due to that breach the appellant suffered. According to the learned senior counsel if at all there had been any kind of breach of agreement on the part of Pavamana Drilling Pvt. Ltd. the conditional OTS accepted by the banks would have been revoked but that is not the case of the appellant. The banks have honoured the OTS only after the payments were made to them and the money received by the banks undisputedly was of Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and given only to acquire the hypothecated equipment by which only the appellant was to be benefited since it would have got relieved of huge liability towards the two banks and finally it did get relieved of that liability.
In my view, the following points have cropped up for consideration and decision by this tribunal as a result of this chapter of litigation opened by the appellant in a closed O.A. of Punjab National Bank:-
(1) Whether the DRT had the jurisdiction to entertain an application moved by a third party for closure of the pending O.A. proceedings after giving directions to the bank to release the hypothecated equipment from its charge as the hypothecatee and to deliver its possession to the third party applicant Company?
(2) Whether the appellant was entitled to be notified of the application moved by M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pt. Ltd. for a direction by the DRT to the bank to release the hypothecated equipment in favour of the said third party applicant Company?
(3) Whether the DRT after withdrawal of the O.A. by the applicant Bank ought to have left the decision regarding the release of bank's charge over hypothecated equipment to the bank's discretion to be exercised itself in accordance with law of hypothecation after having received its dues as per the OTS from the borrower?
(4) Whether the appellant has in any manner been prejudiced by the direction given by the DRT for the release of the hypothecated equipment in favour of Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and if not then can it be permitted to keep the litigation alive?
While expecting favourable verdict from this tribunal on all these points the appellant wants this tribunal to restrain the Banks from handing over the possession of the hypothecated equipment and Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. from taking the delivery of the same, a relief which the appellant has failed to get from the DRT. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of injunction by Civil Courts or quasi judicial tribunals is totally within the discretion of the Courts/tribunals and the Courts/tribunals can refuse to exercise that discretion in favour of the litigant invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court/tribunals if the action initiated by that litigant is found to be lacking in bona fides and its own conduct is such which disentitles it from claiming discretionary relief of injunction from the Courts/tribunals. In the present case, the appellant has been able to settle its loan matters with the two Banks with the money pooled in by M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and now that it has succeeded in getting rid of huge liability of payment of crores of rupees to the two Banks, it wants its hypothecated equipment also to be returned to it and not to the said purchaser Company and it is the case of the appellant that this Company should approach Civil Court either for refund of the money paid by it or for specific performance of the sale agreement in respect of the hypothecated equipment.
It appears that the appellant wants to have the cake and eat it too. The appellant can be compared with a fan of some sport which is being played inside a stadium where he cannot enter for some reason and, therefore, he climbs upon a tree outside the stadium and is content with the watching the game sitting there while others have to shell out huge amount of money to gain entry into the stadium to enjoy the sport of their liking. The authorities managing the stadium, however, cannot force that fan sitting on the tree and enjoying the game being played inside the stadium to come down to seek entry into the stadium by paying the entry fee. Here also, the appellant is watching the game being played inside this quasi judicial stadium without entering the stadium by paying the entry fee. In the process, the appellant appears to be only taking chances that one day it may succeed in getting the impugned orders of the DRT set aside while retaining the money already pocketed by it after having obtained it from M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. However, the authority managing this quasi judicial stadium, where these legal battles are fought, can certainly force such litigants like the appellant to first shell out the money from its pocket to gain entry into the legal battle to gain some benefits arising out of the deal which it had arrived at with M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd.
This tribunal is, therefore, of the view that before any view is expressed on any of the aforesaid points arising for decision at the instance of the appellant, it must be called upon to deposit the amount of Rs. 40 crores paid by M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd., with this tribunal in the form of a bank draft in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Delhi. It is ordered accordingly. The deposit shall be made by the appellant within two weeks. In the event of these points being decided in favour of the appellant, this tribunal will then examine the submissions made on behalf of Punjab National Bank that the effect of recalling of the direction given by DRT on 10.6.2016 for release of hypothecated equipment in favour of M/s. Pavamanna Drilling Pvt. Ltd. will be that the entire order passed on that date, including the withdrawal of the O.A., will stand recalled. The other submission which will be considered is that since the appellant has already failed to respond to the claim petition of the Bank, recovery certificate for the amounts claimed by Punjab National Bank under different Heads ought to be passed straightaway by this tribunal itself instead of remanding back the matter to the DRT.
Accordingly, list this matter now for further directions on 31.5.2017.