The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a proper judgment, proper representation, and adherence to legal requirements for creating charges and maintaining accurate records. The judgment also underscores the consequences of defective Vakalatnamas and the necessity of informing the Registrar of Companies about any charge created by a company.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Counter affidavit has not been filed by respondent No.1 in spite of advance copy of the writ petition being served upon the said respondent before the writ petition was filed and counsel for the respondent No.1 appeared on the first date of hearing of the writ petition on February 23, 2015 when notice was issued and accepted by learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time because it was stated that parties were trying to settle the matter.

3. Today learned counsel for the parties state that between the petitioner and respondent No.1 no settlement talks were being held Settlement talks were with Ajay Marwah, Meenakshi Marwah and Saroj Marwah, who are respondents No.3 to 5 in the writ petition.

4. Be that as it may, we have heard learned counsel for the parties and as we proceed to dictate judgment, learned counsel for the parties state that with consent the writ petition could be disposed of remanding the matter to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

5. Therefore, the reason for remand is being noted by us.

6. In a judgment pronounced today in WP(C) 11595/2015 ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Competent Dyestuff & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. as to how a judgment has to be written, we had indicated as follows:-

“15. We are not rendering any opinion on the quantification of the amounts and what we have written hereinabove is to guide the DRAT as to in what manner the judgment has to be written. A judgment must have a brief overview of the facts to set the scene. A succinct statement of the issues to foreshadow the structure must emerge. If relevant, a succinct statement of the procedural history could be written. An impartial statement of each parties’ position on each issue has to find a mention. A clear statement of the flaws in the losing parties’ position on each issue has to be recorded. Evidence supporting findings on the issues and reference to the law or a standard upon which the judgment is based has to be written.”

7. The same is the problem in the instant case. The impugned order is more like a narrative of a story and less a judgment.

8. It is trite that if a company offers its property as a security for a debt of a third party there has to be a resolution by the Board of Directors and the charge created on the property of the company is registered with the Registrar of Companies.

9. The first respondent filed an Original Application invoking remedy under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It impleaded one Bitum Impex and Meenakshi Marwah as defendants No.1 and 2 pleading that Ajay Marwah, Saroj Marwah and the petitioner as also Sheetal Enterprises, a sole proprietary firm of Ajay Marwah, impleaded as defendants No.3 to 6, were guarantors of the debts payable by the firm. The application was registered as OA No.270/2010. Claim in the OA was in sum of Rs.7,25,65,047/-. It was pleaded that Bitum Impex was in default.

10. Surprisingly, on the very first date of hearing, when the Original Application filed by the first respondent bank was listed, representation through counsel was made under the authority of Ajay Marwah and Meenakshi Marwah. By said date the respondent No.1 has initiated action under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and a petition under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act was filed and surprisingly the petitioners before Debts Recovery Tribunal are the respondents of the instant writ petition; Ajay Marwah, Saroj Marwah, Bitum Impex and Sheetal Enterprises. On the very first date of hearing, Debts Recovery Tribunal decreed claim in the Original Application filed by the petitioner and disposed of the petition filed under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. The decree was on admission.

11. Nobody bothered to see whether the petitioner company was properly represented. No vakalatnama properly executed on behalf of the petitioner was ensured by Debts Recovery Tribunal as having been filed. What had ha