Vijaya Bank vs N.R. Real Estate India Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.

S.N.H. Zaidi, J

Mr. Kumar submits that reply has been filed and copy has been given to the Bank's Counsel today. Mr. Thakur points out that in compliance of the order of this Tribunal certified copies of loan documents have also been filed along with an application for necessary and appropriate directions.

Heard parties Counsel. This appeal has been directed again the order dated 1.3.2012 passed in S.A. No. 551/2011 by the Presiding Officer of DRT-III Delhi whereby the learned Tribunal below, while observing that the project for which the loan was taken could not be completed unless the Bank restore the possession of the hotel building to the applicants (respondents herein), directed the Bank to restore the possession to the applicants for completion of the furnishing work. It was also clarified in the order that the property in question would remain under the symbolic possession of the authorised officer of the Bank and he was directed to visit the premises periodically to see the progress of the furnishing work and also to see that the property is not handed over to anyone else on lease without paying the dues of the Bank.

In compliance of the order impugned the appellant Bank has admittedly not handed over the possession of the hotel building to the applicants and has challenged the same in this appeal. No interim protection has, however, been given to the appellant Bank qua the said order. It appears that the applicant/respondent had moved an application for directing the Bank to hand over the possession of the property in question in compliance of the order dated 1.3.2012 and on that application the learned Tribunal below, vide order dated 30.4.2012, had asked the authorised officer of the Bank to explain about the non-compliance of the order. The appellant has moved the application for stay of the operation of the orders dated 1.3.2012 and 30.4.2012.

From the perusal of the loan documents it appears that on 22.8.2007 a loan of Rs. 65 lacs was sanctioned to the respondent N.R. Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. for renovation of the hotel building against V-Rent, another loan of Rs. 120 lacs was sanctioned on 25.8.2007 also against V-Rent to Smt. Manorama Shandilya, the Director of the respondent company, an OD loan for Rs. 25 lacs was sanctioned on 18.3.2008 to Queens Crown and an S.L. (Secured Loan) for Rs. 50 lacs was sanctioned to the said Queens Crown on 25.8.2008 and as such a total loan amount of Rs. 260 lacs was sanctioned qua those three months.

According to Mr. Thakur, all the loan accounts became NPA and notice, under Section 3(2) of SARFAESI Act, claiming an amount of Rs. 1,03,86,750/- was issued qua the loan sanctioned to Smt. Manorama Shandilya. The Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that an amount of Rs. 56 lacs has since been paid by the respondents. He also submits that Bank's actions have been challenged by the respondents in the S.A. wherein the learned Tribunal below has ordered for the payment of Rs. 48 lacs qua the loan sanctioned to Queens Crown which has admittedly been deposited by the respondents though beyond the time given by the Tribunal.

The appellant Bank has taken over the physical possession of the hotel building, in respect of Smt. Manorama Sandilya's account. The loan document relating to the account N.R. Real Estate India Pvt. Ltd. shows that the loan was sanctioned for renovation of the hotel building which cannot be done unless the property is in possession of the respondents. Mr. Thakur has also submitted that despite seeking several extensions of time for completing the renovation work, the respondents neither completed the same nor made are payments as per the loan agreement. According to him the total defaulted amount is Rs. 57 lacs after adjustment of the payment Rs. 28 lacs made on 1.3.2012 whereas, according to the respondents, it is only Rs. 32 lacs. Though the parties are in dispute so far as the figure of the defaulted amount is concerned, which is to be decided by the Tribunal below, yet I am convinced that the view of the learned Presiding Officer that unless the possession of the hotel building is restored to the borrower, the renovation work cannot be completed is in accordance with the circumstance of the case and does not suffer with any infirmity. The Tribunal below has allowed time up to 30.9.2012 to the respondents for completion of the restoration work, which appears to be reasonable. There is no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned order. The appellant Bank is, accordingly, directed to comply with the direction of the Tribunal below and restore the possession of the hotel building to the respondents within two weeks, for which an undertaking-cum-affidavit is to be filed by the authorized officer of the Bank within three days before this Tribunal. The respondents are also directed to complete the renovation work of the hotel positively within the time allowed by the Tribunal below. After completion of the renovation work, the respondents shall deposit the entire defaulted amount, as will become due on that date within six weeks, i.e., up to 15.12.2012 and shall continue to repay the debt thereafter, as per loan agreement. The respondents are also directed to file an undertaking-cum-affidavit to the effect within three days before this Tribunal. In case of default of compliance of any of the above directions by the respondents, the appellant Bank shall be free to proceed to recover the outstanding amount of debt in accordance with law.

With the direction, the appeal stands disposed of finally.

Copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and one copy be also sent to the concerned DRT.