Delhi High Court
Pacific Spirits (P) Ltd. vs Punjab National Bank & Ors. on 7 November, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~ 44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th November, 2012
+ CM(M). 1217/2012
PACIFIC SPIRITS (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM. No.18985/2012
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM(M). 1217/2012 & CM.18984/2012
1. By an order dated 12.10.2012 in S.A.109/2011, I.A. No.829/2012 was
disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I whereby the Petitioner was
directed to deposit a sum of `1 Crore within one week and a further sum
of `5 Crores within 21 days. The Petitioner was further directed to file an
affidavit-cum-undertaking in this regard by 17.10.2012. The relevant
portion of the order dated 12.10.2012 is extracted hereunder:
"I am of the view that there is no cogent reason to stop the
bank from taking possession of the property, as the applicants had
taken this Tribunal for ride and the direction for deposit of `1
Crore within a month given vide order dated 23.03.12 has also
attained finality as no appeal was preferred against the said order
also. Though not justified, still in the interest of justice, one more
opportunity is given to the applicants to deposit the already
directed amount of `1 Crore within a week and further amount of
`5 Crores within next 21 days.
The applicant shall file an affidavit-cum-undertaking by
17.10.12 to the effect that the said amount shall be deposited in
time. Subject to above the bank is restrained from taking
possession of the property in question. In case the affidavit is not
filed and/or in the case of default in deposit at any stage the bank
will be at liberty to proceed further as per law.
Be listed on 22.11.12 for further proceedings.
Dasti."
2. The Petitioner's grievance is that during pendency of the proceedings
before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi, a portion of plot
No.EXT/SP-3 & EXT/SP-3(A), Industrial Area, Shahjahanpur, 111 Km
stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway NH-8, Distt. Alwar(Rajasthan) an area of
70518.8 sq yd was bifurcated by RIICO which could have liquidated
major portion of the outstanding loan in the name of the Petitioner. It is
urged that in the circumstances, the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi was unjustified as the Petitioner was
not in a position to make the arrangements as mentioned in the order.
3. It is stated that the Appellant has already challenged the order dated
12.10.2012 by filing an Appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, Delhi on 05.11.2012. The learned counsel for the Petitioner
states that in pursuance of order dated 12.10.2012, the Punjab National
Bank has issued a notice dated 25.10.2012 directing the Petitioner to
deliver physical possession of the mortgaged property, before 09.11.2012,
failing which the Bank will take physical possession of the property. The
Appeal is not being listed for hearing as the learned Chairperson, DRAT
is on leave. The Petitioner has been given to understand that the learned
Chairperson is likely to be on leave till 15.11.2012.
4. I have perused the record. In the circumstances, the Petitioner is granted
protection against taking physical possession of the property by the
Respondent Bank in pursuance of the order dated 12.10.2012 and the
notice dated 25.10.2012 till 21.11.2012.
5. With the above directions, the Petition stands disposed of.
6. Dasti under the signature of Court Master.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 07, 2012
pst
