The court emphasized the importance of compliance with consent terms, the right of the bank to recover outstanding dues, and the availability of statutory remedy under Section 30 of the RDB Act.

ORDER :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

1. This is an appeal by the appellants-original petitioners, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the judgment and order, Dated: 24.11.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 22493 of 2022, whereby, the petition filed by the appellants came to be dismissed

2. Brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of the present appeal, reads thus; Petitioner no.1, which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the business of manufacturing of transmission line hardware, upto 800kV. It may be noted that the Bank, which was formerly known as the Dena Bank, had advanced financial assistance to appellant No.1 in the years 1995 and 2005.

2.1 Since, appellant no.1-Company was unable to pay the outstanding dues of the bank, the account of appellant no.1-Company was declared as NPA (Non-Performing Asset) in the year 2008 by the Dena Bank. Pursuant thereto, the proceedings under the The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, hereinafter) were initiated in the year 2009. Thereafter, the Original Application being OA No. 121 of 2010 was also filed before the DRT-II, under the provisions of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (in brief, ‘RDB Act’).

2.2 It appears that, at that point of time, a settlement was arrived at between appellant no.1 and the Opponent-Bank in the year 2010 and the same was produced before the DRT- II, whereupon, the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) passed the order dated 10.08.2011 and disposed of OA No. 121 of 2010, on the basis of the out of court compromise arrived at between the parties.

2.3 Since, appellant No.1 failed to comply with the consent terms arrived at between the parties, the Respondent-Bank instituted the proceedings, being RP No. 75 of 2011, before the Recovery Officer DRT-II. It may be noted that the appellants did not disclose the aforesaid aspect before the Recovery Officer till today, except, referring to an order dated 25.08.2014, which was passed by the Recovery Officer. As per the consent terms, the settlement amount was to be paid by 2014-2015.

2.4 The Opponent-Bank, thereafter, preferred application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short ‘IBC’), against the appellants being CP(IB) No. 629/7/NCLT/AHM/2018 on the ground of non-payment on the part of the appellants. In the meantime, Dena Bank came to be merged with the Opponent- Bank of Baroda in the year 2019. Later on, the aforesaid application was disposed of as withdrawn by The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short ‘NCLT’), vide order dated 05.02.2020, on the ground that the matter has been settled out of Court. The Opponent-Bank, thereafter, preferred IA No. 300 of 2022 in RP No. 75 of 2011 for recovery of the outstanding dues on 30.06.2022 and the same was allowed by the Recovery Officer on 22.07.2022, whereby, the Court Commissioner was appointed to take the possession of the properties of Petitioner No.1-Company, which were mortgaged with the Opponent-Bank and the possession of the same was taken over on 02.10.2022, accordingly.

2.5 Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants challenged the entire proceedings of RP No. 75 of 2011 before the learned Single Judge of this Court, contending that the same is in contravention of the order dated 05.02.2020, passed in CP(IB) No. 629/7/NCLT/AHM/2018, which was filed under Section 7 of the IBC.

2.6 After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2022, whereby, the petition filed by the appellants came to be dismissed.

Hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shalin Mehta, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. Purohit, for the appellants and learned Advocate, Ms. Lodha, appearing for the Opponent-Bank.

4. Learned Sr. Advoca