S.A. No. 7 of 2005. Case: Mayank Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs The Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr.. Nagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals
|Case Number:||S.A. No. 7 of 2005|
|Party Name:||Mayank Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs The Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Khan, Adv. and For Respondents: Khati, Adv. for Respondent No. 1|
|Judges:||K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer|
|Issue:||Sccuritization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2003 - Sections 13(2), 13(4) and 17|
|Citation:||III (2005) BC 229|
|Judgement Date:||July 07, 2005|
|Court:||Nagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals|
K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer
The two properties--one situated at Jaripatka, Nagpur and other in Kalmeshwar Industrial Estate, Dist. Nagpur--respectively belonging to the applicants arc involved in this Securitization Application (S.A.) under Section 17 of Sccuritization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2003 (SRFAESI Act).
The facts of the case arc that the respondents by notice dated 29.4.2003 under Section 13(2) of SRFAESI Act called upon the applicants to pay Rs. 53,88,515/- with interest thereupon. The applicant No. 1 assailed the action in Writ Petition No. 4707/2003 filed in Nagpur Bench of Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay. By interim order dated 6th February, 2.004, the High Court directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs. The applicant was also directed to make offer to the respondent as to how they propose to pay balance amount. The writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 27th August, 2004 pursuant to the Apex Court judgment in Mardia Chemicals case; In the order, however, the undertaking was given by the learned Counsel for the Bank that it will take appropriate decision in accordance with Law to notice under Section 13(2) of SRFAESI Act. Before passing of said order, the applicants had given fresh settlement proposal to the Bank on 19.5.2004. By further letter dated 15.9.2004 the applicants requested the Bank to settle the matter as per RBI guidelines and showed readiness to pay Rs. 72,000/- per month. The applicants gave one more proposal on 22.11.2004 of settlement showing readiness to pay Rs. 41 lakhs as the account became N.P.A. in 2001. The respondents by letter dated 11.12.2004 informed that since the proposal is not given, it has decided to go ahead. The applicants, therefore, preferred Writ Petition No. 6129/2004 which was disposed of by Hon'ble High Court at Bombay Bench at Nagpur with direction to approach this Tribunal.
By possession notice dated 19.1.2005 under Section 13(4) of SRFAESI Act, the respondent took possession.
The grounds of appeal are that the respondent ought to have considered objections raised by the applicants and should have dealt with representations/proposals dated 15.9.2004 and 21.11.2004. But, the respondent took stand that the applicant is not giving fresh proposal. The Bank is bound by RBI circulars in the matter of O.T.S. But, it is not adhering to the same. In any case, the action of taking...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL