Appeal Nos. 32 and 33 of 2015. Case: Apex Electronics and Ors. Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.. Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | Appeal Nos. 32 and 33 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.K. Kapoor and Rekha Giri, Advocates and For Respondents: Vipin Pillai representing Hashmat Nabi, Advocates |
| Judges | Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(4) |
| Citation | IV (2015) BC 185 (DRAT) |
| Judgement Date | July 22, 2015 |
| Court | Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Judgment:
Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)
-
These two appeals are directed against the order passed by the Tribunal below, dismissing the S.As., filed by the appellants. Two separate S.As. (Nos. 206/2011 and 217/2011) filed by the Mr. Vikas Bhalla and another, and M/s. Apex Electronics respectively were disposed of by a common order by the Tribunal as these S.As. pertained to a common property. Accordingly, both the appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of through this common order. M/s. Apex Electronics is a partnership concern of Mr. A.K. Singla, Mr. Kishan Lal both sons of Mr. Ram Chand and Mr. Tejinder Pal Bhalla. This partnership concern had availed financial limit from the respondent Punjab National Bank. To secure this financial facility, various properties standing in the name of partners were mortgaged in favour of the Bank. Due to a dispute between the partners, the business of the firm was closed in December 2009. On the death of one partner in October 2010, the partnership automatically stood dissolved.
-
The borrower company failed to repay the dues of the Bank. The Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 12.11.2010 raising a demand of Rs. 1,41,50,877.67. The account of the company was declared NPA on 30.9.2010. The appellant firm claims that it started making payment of the debt and had deposited an amount of Rs. 80 lac by different means and also an amount of Rs. 80 lac by selling property which belonged to the firm. It is alleged that after deposit of this amount, the balance amount due against the appellant firm was reduced to Rs. 61,92,000/-. In this regard, reference is made to the status report dated 11.2.2011 which is enclosed with the appeal.
-
The appellant company would also urge that the partners were always willing to make the remaining payment and Mr. A.K. Singla and the legal representative son of the deceased partner Mr. Krishan Lal Dhawan had approached the Senior Manager of the Bank on 31.3.2011. The appellant had accordingly made a request for one-time settlement (OTS) so as to make the remaining payment. It is also disclosed that in response to the same a meeting was held with the DGM of the Bank in the presence of Chief Manager and Senior Manager, and the Bank had agreed for OTS scheme with the condition that each partner, i.e., Mr. A.K. Singla and legal representative on behalf Mr. Krishan Lal Singla would make a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lac each. This amount was deposited by Mr. Pardeep Dhawan, legal representative of deceased partner. A sum of Rs. 20 lac was accordingly deposited in sundry account against the OTS proposal. In this meeting, it was agreed that an amount of Rs. 41.28 lac would be paid as settlement amount (being two-thirds of Rs. 61,92,000/- which was outstanding against the firm). One-third of this amount was to be paid erstwhile partner Mr. Tejinder Pal Bhalla who had separately mortgaged the property of his son Mr. Vikas Bhalla.
-
Once the amount of Rs. 20 lac was deposited, the OTS scheme was forwarded for acceptance to the competent authority. The partners Mr. A.K. Singla and Mr. Pardeep Dhawan moved an application with an undertaking to deposit Rs. 13 lac as and when OTS scheme is accepted. While the OTS proposal was under consideration, Bank tried to take physical possession of residential house standing in the name of Mr. A.K. Singla. The appellant would urge that the Bank had taken this action violating all statutory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, and had acted without giving any notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. When the Bank was going ahead to take physical possession of the property, the appellant had filed S. A. before the Tribunal below and the action of the Bank was stayed subject to payment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial