SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Mad) 2379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND M. VENUGOPAL, JJ.
Kongunadu Hospitals (P) Ltd. - Petitioner
Vs.
Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-II & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.No.9507 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Decided On : 10.07.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For petitioner: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, SC for Mr. A.Thiyagarajan.
For respondents: Mr. T.T. Ravichandran for Mr. N.K. Sekar for R-2.
Mr. Srinath Sridevan for R-3.

Headnote:Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Section 29 Income Tax Act, Schedule 2 Rule 60 –The Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner to get the certificate of possession within time limit by recovery officer by depositing money through demand draft-The petitioner also contended that such sale cannot be cancelled due to non- payment of money within prescribed time limit accordance with section 29 act 1993 and with Rule 60 II schedule- The time limit for such act is given 90 days by High court which could be further extended for natural justice the respondent requested –The High court decision was challenged through S.L.P filed by guarantor, petitioner and borrower in which it was appealed to stay the order till S.L.P is dismissed-Due to which 90 days commences from the dismissal of S.L.P so parties could start from initiation-Writ petition dismissed.

ORDER

SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.

The instant writ petition is filed by the auction purchaser, seeking a direction to the first respondent-Recovery Officer to receive a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- deposited by way of demand draft from the petitioner in the light of the condition No.VI of paragraph 29 in the common order dated 25.02.2009 passed in W.P.No.6131, 6149, 6662 of 2005, 23002 and 49641 of 2006 and C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1807 and 1808 of 2006 and to issue possession certificate in favour of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the disputes, as projected by the petitioner, are that the secured financial institution, Indian Overseas Bank (for short “IOB”), to recover outstanding dues of Rs.25 lakhs from the third respondent, obtained an ex parte final order dated 31.5.2004 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai in O.A.No.304 of 2003 filed by it. Being aggrieved, several writ petitions were filed by the Bank, guarantor and borrower before this Court. In the meantime, the said property was put on public auction held on 2.3.2006, which was confirmed by issuance of sale certificate in favour of the petitioner /auction purchaser on 3.3.2006. The division bench of this court, considering all facts of the matter, disposed of all petitions by a common order with the following directions :

“29. For the aforesaid reasons, the following directions are issued :

(i) The amount deposited with the Recovery Officer shall be returned to the auction purchaser within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) The borrowers/guarantor are required to pay interest by way of compensation to the auction purchaser at the rate of 10% per annum from the respective dates of deposit of such amount by the auction purchaser i.e., deposit of initial amount at the time of auction and deposit of balance amount at the time of confirmation, till the date of payment by the borrowers / guarantor.

(iii) A sum of Rs.8,05,000/-, which is paid by the auction purchaser towards bondage fee and registration fee, shall be paid by the guarantor.

(iv) The amounts as per condition Nos.(ii) and (iii) shall be paid directly to the auction purchaser or deposited with the Recovery Officer within a period of 90 days. If such amount is deposited with the Recovery Officer, he in his turn shall pay such amount to the auction purchaser within a period of one week from the date of such deposit.

(v) The guarantor is required to deposit a further sum of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakhs) with the Recovery Officer as a condition precedent for the guarantor to contest the proceedings as well as condition precedent for setting aside the auction and the order of confirmation. Such amount shall be kept in a separate fixed deposit account in the creditor bank, so that the benefit of the accrued interest would be ultimately enjoyed by the successful party.

(vi) The directions contained in Condition Nos.(ii), (iii) and (v) shall be complied with by the guarantor within a period of 90 days as a condition precedent for setting aside the ex-parte final order so far as the guarantor is concerned. It is made clear that, if such conditions are not complied with within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the ex-parte final order against the guarantor and the auction of the property shall be deemed to have been confirmed as against such guarantor.”

3. Being aggrieved, the guarantor/ second respondent preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9487 of 2009, wherein the Supreme Court by order dated 1st May, 2009, while issuing notice, stayed the operation of the said order of the High Court, which continued till the final dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on 21st January, 2015. Challenging the order dated 25.02.2009 passed by this Court, the petitioner herein has also preferred Special Leave Petitions, being SLP(C) Nos.27031-27035 of 2009 and the third respondent, being the borrower had also preferred Special Leave P




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top