Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 733 (RAJ)

Shiva Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

2020-12-15

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2020
JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - Learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.K. Agarwal, assisted by learned counsel Ms.Sunita Pareek, appearing for the petitioner submitted that an application No.1/2020 has been filed for making correction in the order passed by this Court on 09.12.2020, whereby it has been recorded that the petitioner has not been able to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- with the respondent-Bank and further modification is also sought in order dated 09.11.2020. Learned counsel submitted that the statement was given on 09.12.2020 that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.25,00,000/- and as such, necessary corrections may be made in the order dated 19.12.2020. 2. This Court finds that inadvertently, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was not able to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- but, in fact, the petitioner is said to have deposited Rs.25,00,000/- and as such, the order dated 09.12.2020 is modified to that extent that the petitioner has deposited Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by this Court also needs to be modified and condition imposed to deposit Rs.1 Crore within a period of four weeks needs to be revisited by this Court by permitting the petitioner to only pay Rs.25,00,000/-, which he has already deposited. 4. This Court finds that on 09.11.2020, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the order was passed that the petitioner company should deposit Rs.1 Crore with the respondent-Bank within a period of four weeks, then the effect & operation of the order dated 21.02.2019 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in SA No.160/2019 (M/s. Shiva Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Canara Bank) was to remain stayed. 5. This Court, as an interim measure, restrained the respondent Bank to proceed further to take any physical possession of immovable property of the petitioner company. 6. This Court finds that on 09.12.2020, it was informed by counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank that the petitioner has not complied with the order of depositing the required amount of Rs.1 Crore within four weeks and he had only deposited Rs.25,00,000/-. 7. 6. This Court finds that on 09.12.2020, it was informed by counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank that the petitioner has not complied with the order of depositing the required amount of Rs.1 Crore within four weeks and he had only deposited Rs.25,00,000/-. 7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.K.Agarwal submits that on the last date of hearing also, he made a prayer that the petitioner had suffered from COVID-19 and he was hospitalized and as such, compliance of the order was not made and learned counsel further sought time to place on record certain documents/facts to show that compliance of the order could not be made by the petitioner. 8. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. This Court finds that the conditional order, passed by this Court on 09.11.2020, has not been complied with by the petitioner. This Court further finds that the period of depositing the requisite amount of Rs.1 Crore has already expired on 08.12.2020 and the only depositing Rs.25,00,000/- does not make compliance of the order dated 09.11.2020. 10. As regards to the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has genuine difficulty in depositing the amount, this Court finds that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'DRT') has already passed an order and the same was challenged before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for short 'DRAT'). 11. This Court finds that the DRAT, Delhi had specifically passed an order that the benefit of waiver of 25% of recoverable debt cannot be granted and there was a requirement of pre-deposit and as such the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount, as ordered by the DRAT, Delhi. 12. This Court, considering the judgment/order shown to the Court by learned Senior counsel in Civil Writ Petition No.10957/2012 (M/s. SR Forging Ltd. & Anr. Vs. UCO Bank & Ors.) dated 19.02.2013 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as the order passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.5400/2013 (Kanti Lal Sadh & Ors. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank) dated 30.08.2013, had granted the interim protection to the petitioner on certain conditions. 13. This Court finds that if the petitioner has failed to comply with the order dated 09.11.2020, this Court accordingly vacates the interim order dated 09.11.2020. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank) dated 30.08.2013, had granted the interim protection to the petitioner on certain conditions. 13. This Court finds that if the petitioner has failed to comply with the order dated 09.11.2020, this Court accordingly vacates the interim order dated 09.11.2020. The respondent-Bank is also free to proceed against the petitioner, as counsel for the respondent has informed that proposed sale of the property was on hold because of the interim order, passed by this Court. 14. This Court finds that the DRAT, Delhi, while passing the order dated 16.10.2020, has not committed any error. This Court finds that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that there is a requirement of law under Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the 'SARFAESI Act'), that the appellant-borrower is required to make pre-deposit of 50% of amount, demanded by the Bank or Financial Institution. 15. This Court further finds that the DRAT has further recorded that discretion is given to the Appellate Tribunal to reduce the amount of pre-deposit for the reason to be recorded in writing upto 25% of the demanded amount. 16. This Court, on perusal of the order passed by the DRAT, Delhi, finds that the benefit of waiver of condition of 25% of recoverable debt, amount has not agreed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the DRAT and as such, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was not entertainable for noncompliance of the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit. 17. This Court, accordingly, finds that the petitioner has been misusing the discretionary power given to the Appellate Court as well as to this Court and as such, conduct of the petitioner also does not make him entitled for invoking the writ jurisdiction. 18. This Court, considering conduct of the petitioner, also deems it fit and proper to dismiss the present writ petition as well as the stay application. 19. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.