P. Kanagasabhavathy vs Indian Renewable Energy ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 4029 Del

$~31.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5536/2014
                                          Date of decision: 29th August, 2014
        P. KANAGASABHAVATHY
                                                                ..... Petitioner
                           Through Mr. S. Mahendran, Advocate.

                           versus

        INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
        LIMITED (IREDA) & ORS.      ..... Respondents
                      Through Nemo.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. ENDLAW

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):

        CM No. 13752/2014

        Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

        WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5536/2014

        The present writ petition by P. Kanagasabhavathy, impugns order

dated 21st July, 2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,

Delhi (Appellate Tribunal, for short). By the said order, the Appellate

Tribunal has dismissed application seeking condonation of delay of 733

days, in filling of the appeal.

2.      The respondent No.1 herein Indian Renewable Energy Development

Agency Limited (IREDA, for short) had initiated recovery proceedings


W.P. (C) 5536/2014                                                  Page 1 of 4
 under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,

1993 on 18th July, 2001, culminating in the adjudication order dated 9th

December, 2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (DRT, for

short). It was held that the petitioner herein, his wife Smt. L.

Swaranlakshmi alongwith the company/principal borrower M/s South India

Fuel Private Limited were liable to pay Rs.15,56,440/- with pendente lite

and future interest @ 11% per annum with quarterly rests. Other directions

were also issued.

3.      The petitioner herein and others did not prefer any appeal against the

said original order till 16th February, 2012. In the meantime, the Recovery

Officer initiated action for auction of the property located in district

Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu. The property was sold for Rs.55.10 lacs to the

highest bidder, on 9th March, 2012. On or about 9th April, 2012, the

petitioner approached the respondent bank with demand drafts of Rs.57

lacs and a proposal of settlement. Initially respondent no.1 IREDA returned

the drafts observing that the proposed settlement was not in accordance

with norms of IREDA. Then petitioner re-submitted the drafts amounting

to Rs 57 lacs on 28.7.2012. Respondent IREDA, vide its letter dated

7.8.2012, accepted the fresh settlement proposal, but demanded a further

amount of Rs 8.57 lacs. Petitioner, it is stated, made payment of Rs 8.57

lacs. Respondent No.1 IREDA has issued 'no dues' certificate dated 27th

September, 2012, subject to further order or directions from competent

W.P. (C) 5536/2014                                                  Page 2 of 4
 court/tribunals where the subject matter was pending adjudication or in

appeal. This shows that the controversy emanating from the Original

Application between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 has come to an

end and stands resolved.

4.      It is pointed out to us that proceedings before the DRT on the

question of sale by way of auction, objection thereto etc. are pending. The

issue with regard to payment and the effect of issue of 'no dues' certificate

in terms of letter dated 27th September, 2012, including rights of third party

purchaser are subjudice before the said forum. In view of the aforesaid

position, we are not examining the said issue/question, but have noted the

relevant facts. We also note that the auction-purchaser is not a party to the

present writ petition.

5.      As far as present writ petition and the reasoning given by the

Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order dated 21 st July, 2014 are

concerned, we do not think that the matter requires or merits interference.

The petitioner's contention is that the original adjudication order dated 9th

December, 2009 was sent under certificate of posting, whereas under the

rules the adjudication order should have been sent under registered post,

reflect an ignorable irregularity as the factum that the adjudication order

was sent and was duly received at the correct address is not disputed. The

order sent by post was enclosed and filed along with the belated grounds of

appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal.         Delay of 733 days is

W.P. (C) 5536/2014                                                  Page 3 of 4
 substantial and an indication that the adjudication order was accepted. No

doubt, the petitioner became seriously ill on 25th March, 2011, but this

would explain the delay for the period thereafter, it would not explain the

delay for the prior period. We also notice that there is no averment or

statement that the order dated 9th December, 2009 was not duly served or

received by the company M/s South India Fuel Private Limited or the wife

of the petitioner, Smt. L. Swaranlakshmi, who have been impleaded as

proforma respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to the present writ petition.

6.      The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but with the aforesaid

observations. We clarify that this order will not be construed as a binding

observation in the proceedings pending before the DRT.


                                             SANJIV KHANNA, J.

R.S. ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 29, 2014 VKR