Allahabad High Court
M/S Trimurti Construction And ... vs The Debt Recovery Tribunal And 3 ... on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31615 of 2022
Petitioner :- M/S Trimurti Construction And Coal Depo And 3 Others
Respondent :- The Debt Recovery Tribunal And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Agrawal,Krishna Mohan Asthana
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prashant Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent-Bank.
The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer:-
"I. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Respondent No.1, The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad in Original Application No. 513 of 2021 (Union Bank of India Vs M/s Trimurti Construction and Coal Depo) and others) (Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition).
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned auction proceedings scheduled to be held on 20.10.2022 at 11.00 A.M. pursuant to the Auction Notice dated 16.09.2022, issued by the respondent Bank.
III. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to accept the balance amount of Rs. 24,08,009.33 which the petitioners be permitted to deposit within reasonable period.
IV. Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
V. Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
It is argued by learned Senior Counsel that the order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.1/ Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad in Original Application No.513 of 2021 (Union of India Vs. M/S Trimurti Construction And Coal Depo) first time came into the knowledge of the petitioners on 16.09.2022 when the auction notice was published. By the aforesaid auction notice, recovery of a sum of Rs.58,76009.32/- was sought along with other expenses. It is further argued that the petitioners have already deposited Rs.34,68,000/- out of the aforesaid amount, i.e., Rs.58,76009.32/-. It is stated in the supplementary affidavit that the petitioners have also further deposited a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. It is argued that since most of the part of the amount has already been deposited and the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit remaining balance amount to the bank, the auction notice be quashed and reasonable time be granted to the petitioners to deposit remaining balance amount.
On the other hand, Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent-Bank argued that if the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the balance amount within a time bound period, the relief as prayed in the writ petition be granted to him.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioners have already deposited most of the amount of the claimed amount and the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the balance amount, this Court is of the opinion that depositing most of amount shows bonafide of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for one opportunity to deposit the balance amount.
In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the auction notice dated 16.09.2022 is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed subject to condition that the petitioners shall deposit the remaining balance amount within a period of two months from today.
In case the petitioners default in depositing the aforesaid balance amount within the stipulated period, it will be open for the respondents to start recovery proceedings against the petitioners.
Order Date :- 19.10.2022
saqlain
