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

Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. v/s Punjab & Sind Bank & Others

    Appeal No. 91 of 2011
    Decided On, 13 May 2014
    At, Debts Recovery Appealate Tribunal at Delhi
    For the Appellant: Sumit S. Benipal, Sidak Sandhu, Advocates. For the Respondents: Rajinder Wali, Advocate.

Judgment Text
Ranjit Singh, J., Chairperson:

1. Dasti notices were issued in this case on 17th January, 2011 for 19.1.2011. When the appeal came up for hearing on 19th January, 2011, delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

2. Arguments on admission of the appeal were heard. This Tribunal noticed that a sum of Rs. 1,30,69,730.22 together with costs and interests @16.5% with quarterly compounded rest from the date of filing of the suit until actual realization of the entire amount was held recoverable. Liability of defendant Nos. 1 to 7 (out of which one is the appellant) was joint and several. At that stage, Counsel for the appellant stated that he would have no objection if the properties mortgaged with the Bank were auctioned in terms of the orders passed by the Tribunal below. It was also maintained that one of the properties will be enough to recover the entire liability. This Tribunal therefore did not consider it appropriated and necessary to impose any condition of pre-deposit, put liberty was given to the respondent-Bank to dispose of the property as per the directions given by the Tribunals below.

3. The appeal is pending since then and is being adjourning ever since the year 2011.

4. In between the respondent-Bank had filed an application praying for review of the order dated January 19, 2011 on the ground that the said order was passed in the absence of the Counsel for the Bank and that the property which was mortgaged belonged to Tejwant Singh which had been attached under the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, was not open to be sold. On 5th April, 2011, this Tribunal had directed the parties to file affidavits stating attached by the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court as on that date. The prayer for review of the order was declined on 15th May, 2011 when the Tribunal felt satisfied that the property in question was not the subject matter of attachment as per orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. Despite all this the issue has remained pending before this Tribunal, Ultimately, issue of sale of this property was again taken up for consideration on 19th August, 2013 and on that day Mr. Wali, Counsel for the respondent-Bank, pointed out that the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 21 of RDDBFI Act was directed to be complied with by sale of the mortgaged properties. Since the properties could not be sold, compliance of the said properties. Since the properties could not be sold, compliance of the said provision could not be done. The appellant/mortgagors were directed to assist in identification of the mortgaged property before the Recovery Officer so that the same could be sold. Despite such directions, it is stated before me today, that the appellant has not appeared before the Recovery Officer to identify the property. On 23rd April, 2014, this Tribunal had passed an order giving one week more time to the appellants to verify the property and to come with a concrete proposal with some payment in case they wanted their OTS proposal to be considered. Nothing has been done. Today it is submitted that Mr. Tejwant Singh is responsible and the appellants are only guarantors. The Counsel submits that recovery should be effected from the property of Tejwant Singh and not from the guarantors.

6. The appellant is a company. It has to act through someone and has filed this appeal thorough, its Director Mr. Harpreet Singh. It is quite obvious that the appellant guarantors have been avoiding liability on the one pretext or the other and has now come up with the plea that the dues be recovered from M. Tejwant Singh. Aim seems to be escape or avoid liability to make a pre-deposit. The appellant has unnecessarily been permitted to prosecute this appeal till date. The appellant has neither identified the property nor has he made any move to make any pre-deposit. No waiver has been allowed.

7. Still the Counsel for the appellant was asked if he is willing to make some deposit to meet with the legal requirement of pre-deposit. The Counsel sought some time and after speaking to someone states that the appellant has lost his maternal uncle and so has prayed for time to respond. This is yet another attempt to buy time. The appeal is pending since the year 2011. I am not inclined to grant any further opportunity as neither the sale of the property has been effected nor the appellant is ready to make any pre-deposit. Therefore, the present appeal cannot entertained and is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.