Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 2083
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha, JJ.
Authorized Officer Punjab National Bank - Appellants
Versus
M/S Kut Energy Pvt. Ltd. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12262-12268 of 2018, (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4898-4904 of 2018 @ D No.13664 of 2018) With Civil Appeal No. 12136 of 2018, (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4871 of 2018 @ D No. 14309 of 2018)
Decided On : 04-05-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tarun Gulati, Adv., Mr. Neil Hildreth, Adv., Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv., Mr. Kishore Kunal, Adv., Mr. Abeer Kumar, Adv., Ms. Hitakshi Mittal, Adv., Ms. Shashi Mathews, Adv., Mr. Kishore Kunal, Adv., Mr. H.P.Raval, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR, Mr. P.B.Suresh, Adv., Mr. Prithu Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N.K.Kaul, ASG, Mr. B.C.Negi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sanjana Seddy, Adv., MS. Amrita Singh, Adv., M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR, Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Adv., Mr. Siddhartth Garg, Adv., Mr. K.V.Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tarun Gulati, Adv., Mr. Neil Hildreth, Adv., Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv., Mr. Kishore Kunal, Adv., Mr. Abeer Kumar, Adv., Ms. Hitakshi Mittal, Adv. Ms. Shashi Mathews, Adv., Mr. Kishore Kunal, Adv.
Caution against High Court interference in debt recovery matters in the writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Delay Condoned - Debt Recovery - The court set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court, cautioning against interference in such matters in the writ jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent is a debtor to the tune of Rs. 325,00,00,000/-(Rupees Three hundred Twenty Five crores only) and above. The Bank rejected a One Time Settlement proposal to settle for a figure of Rs. 150,00,000/-(Rupees One hundred Fifty crores only), of which the debtor has deposited only Rs. 40,00,00,000/- (Rupees Forty crores only) till date. An auction of the mortgaged property has already taken place, and the highest bidder has paid 25% of the bid amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court, cautioning against interference in such matters in the writ jurisdiction.
Issues: Interference by the High Court in debt recovery matters, rejection of One Time Settlement proposal, auction of mortgaged property, and payment by the highest bidder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cautioned against the High Court interfering in debt recovery matters in the writ jurisdiction, and set aside the impugned orders.
Final Decision: The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Leave granted.
4. The respondent is a debtor to the tune of Rs. 325,00,00,000/-(Rupees Three hundred Twenty Five crores only) and above. The Bank has rejected a One Time Settlement proposal to settle for a figure of Rs. 150,00,000/-(Rupees One hundred Fifty crores only), of which the debtor has deposited only Rs. 40,00,00,000/- (Rupees Forty crores only) till date.
5. Meanwhile, an auction of the mortgaged property has already taken place, but, as no interim relief was granted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal by its order dated 06.10.2017, Respondent No. 5, who is the highest bidder, has paid 25% of the bid amount, after which sale confirmation has taken place by a letter dated 07.10.2017. We may hasten to add that on 18.10.2017, a cheque for the balance of 75% was furnished by respondent No. 5, but not encashed, and this was done again on 17.03.2018.
6. In a recent judgment delivered by one of us in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. Vs. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85, we have cautioned against the High Court interfering in such matters in the writ jurisdiction. Such caution has unfortunately not been heeded in the present case. Given the facts of the present case, we, therefore, set-aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court.
7. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
