w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Lan Eseda Industries V/S Shri Hari Rice and Agro Pvt. Ltd. and Others.

    I.A. No. 1024 of 2015 and Inward No. 689 of 2015

    Decided On, 23 December 2015

    At, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: RANJIT SINGH
    By, (CHAIRPERSON)

    For Petitioner: S.L. Gupta, Advocate



Judgment Text


1. Earlier M/s. Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. and M/s. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd. had approached this Tribunal to impugn the same order passed by the Tribunal below on 16.9.2015 directing them to pay amount specified in the order for use and occupation of the land belonging to the appellant. As already noticed while disposing of the Appeal Nos. 357/2015, 358/2015, 359/2015 and 374/2015, the O.A. filed by the Bank was allowed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 81,47,124/- with interest @ 21% p.a. and cost of Rs. 84,000/-. These amounts were to be recovered from the appellant. Recovery proceedings pursuant to this order passed in the O.A. commenced before the R.O. and two properties, namely, C-4/1 and C-4/2, Gondia Industrial Area, Village Mundipur, Tehsil and Dist. Gondia, Maharashtra were sold by way of auction. M/s. Shree Hari Rice & Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. D.J. Enterprises Ltd. respectively were the highest bidders for these properties. The sale, however, was subsequently set aside and this order setting aside the sale was upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2. Despite the setting aside of the sale, the highest bidders trespassed into the property and took illegal possession. Not only that, they leased out the same to M/s. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd. When this fact came to the notice of the R.O., he directed M/s. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd. to hand over the possession of the properties back to the Bank. The R.O. also imposed penalty for use and occupation of the land, which, however, was set aside and ultimately the case was remitted back to the R.O. to decide the charges that can be fairly levied for use and occupation of this land by the M/s. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd.

3. The R.O. and the Tribunal below have now allowed compensation for use and occupation of this land. Both, the highest bidders as well as M/s. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., had challenged this order, but their appeals have been dismissed.

4. The grievance of the present appellant, who was the borrower and owner of this land, is that no compensation has been allowed to the appellant for the period from 2008 to 2010 though compensation for use and occupation of the land from 2010 onward has been granted by the R.O. as well as by the Tribunal.

5. The properties in question were put to sale on 9.4.2008 for a sum of Rs. 62.50 lac. It was thereafter that the highest bidders had occupied the land which was put to auction. The auction, however, was subsequently set aside in the year 2008. The appellant had claimed compensation of Rs. 6.45 crore and had also demanded damages to the tune of Rs. 2,09,33,000/- from M/s. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd. for causing damage to the property. The R.O. and the Tribunal below have now allowed the compensation. The appellant has been held entitled to receive the rent which the highest bidders had received from M/s. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd. apart from compensation for use and occupation of the land. The amount of Rs. 62.50 lac deposited by the highest bidders has been ordered to be adjusted towards the rent they had received. The Tribunal below has also given liberty to the appellant to claim damages, as no sufficient material in this regard had been placed before the Tribunal.

6. The appellant thus has not only received compensation for use of land from M/s. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., but has received an amount of Rs. 62.50 lac from the auction purchasers as well. Once the sale was set aside, the auction purchasers could claim this amount deposited. This amount has been adjusted towards the liability of the appellant. The appellant thus has been compensated for use and occupation of land in fair and re

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

asonable manner and still can claim damages. In view of this, I do not find any justification to consider the plea raised in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Considering the nature of the prayer made in the present appeal, there is no need for the appellant to make any pre-deposit. The application (I.A. No. 1024/2015) for waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit is accordingly disposed of.
O R