Delhi High Court
M/S. Aec Ssangyong Ltd And Ors vs Abhishek Kumar Jain And Anr. on 7 April, 2015
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on 7th April, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 2097/2015 & C.M.Nos.3770-72/2015, 5975/2015
M/S. AEC SSANGYONG LTD AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Rajiv Mehra, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Pushkar Sood, Advs.
versus
ABHISHEK KUMAR JAIN AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Pallav Saxena, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed
against the order dated 24.02.2015 of the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal (DRAT). Those proceedings arose on account of an application
(O.A.) filed by the Industrial Financial Corporation of India (IFCI) Ltd. for
recovery of certain amounts. The O.A. was allowed on 07.03.2002 and the
recovery certificate was issued. Consequent upon initiation of recovery
proceedings the property - equitably mortgaged to IFCI was auctioned on
18.10.2010 for ₹1.57 crores. This sale was confirmed by the Recovery
Officer (R.O.) on 18.05.2011. The petitioner appealed against that order;
the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), by the order dated 13.09.2012 affirmed
the order and action of the R.O.
WP(C)2097/2015 Page 1
2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had entered into a settlement and
paid all the dues of IFCI in terms of a One Time Settlement (OTS) dated
15.03.2011. This appears to have been recorded in the proceedings before
the R.O. and DRT. The petitioner's appeal against the order dated
13.09.2012, confirming the sale was rejected in these circumstances by the
DRAT, in terms of the impugned order.
3. During the pendency of these proceedings, the parties - essentially
the writ petitioner and the successful auction purchaser in whose favour the
auction sale was confirmed - (impleaded in these proceedings as the first
respondent), have agreed to resolve their dispute. The terms of the
settlement have been set out in the application No. 5975/2015. The material
portion of that application is extracted below:
2. On 13.03.2015, the petitioners and respondent no. 1 entered
into an amicable settlement on the following terms and
conditions:
(a) Petitioners and the Respondent No.1 agree that
the challenges and objections made by the
Petitioners assailing the auction held on
18.10.2010 in favour of the Respondent No.1
pursuant to Order dated 03.09.2010 passed by
Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Delhi in RC
No.241/2002 be sustained and consequently the
said Auction; the order dated 18.05.2011 passed
by Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Delhi; order dated
13.09.2012 passed by Presiding Officer, DRT-I
Delhi in Appeal No.26/2011 and order dated
24.02.2015 passed by DRAT, Delhi in Appeal
No.366/2012 be also set aside on the performance
of the under mentioned covenants;
WP(C)2097/2015 Page 2
(b) In the first instance the Petitioners shall
deposit with the Respondent No.1 an amount of
Rs.30,00,000.00 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) by
Bankers Cheque / Demand Draft on or before
10.04.2015;
(c) A further amount of Rs.2,50,00,000.00 (Rupees
Two Crores Fifty Lakhs Only) to be deposited by
the Petitioners with the Respondent No.1 by
Bankers Cheque / Demand Draft on or before
30.04.2015;
(d) On such deposit of Rs.2.80 crores in the
manner stipulated above, the Respondent No.1 will
be entitled to immediate release of the total
amount of auction amount as deposited by the
Respondent No.1 with the Recovery Officer along
with interest accrued thereon till date;
(e) In the event of any default or delay by the
Petitioners making deposit of the amounts
stipulated in clauses 1 and 2 above, all challenges
made assailing the said auction in favour of
Respondent No.1 shall be deemed to be given up
and withdrawn unconditionally and all the said
orders passed by Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Delhi,
Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Delhi and DRAT, Delhi
assailed in the present petition shall be deemed to
have been sustained;
(f) Subject to the issuance appropriate directions
by this Hon 'ble Court, the petitioners and
respondent no.1 shall approach the learned
Recovery Officer for recalling of sale certificate
and other necessary steps for giving effect to this
settlement after the respondent no.1 recelves the
entire amount of compensation and the auction
money alongwith accrued interest is refunded to
him.
WP(C)2097/2015 Page 3
4. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties.
Mr.Kamaljeet Singh, Manager, Law, IFCI is present. He confirms the fact
that OTS between the petitioner and IFCI was in fact entered into; money
paid and its dues discharged and taken care of.
5. During the submissions, learned counsel for the parties agreed that
the terms of para 2 (b) i.e. obliging the petitioner to pay the first respondent
₹ 30 lakhs extended was by. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be deemed to
have discharged its obligation under Clause 2(b) and of the joint application
if it pays the sum of ₹ 30 lakhs to the respondent No.1 on or before
17.04.2015. The Court notices that the certified copy of the Resolution
dated 17.03.2015 authorising the petitioner company to enter into
compromise/settlement with the first respondent is placed on record.
Likewise the power of attorney authorising Mr. Ashok Mishrimal Golecha
to represent the first respondent is also a part of the record. The affidavits
of the petitioner and said power of attorney holder in support of the
application are also on the record. This is in addition to the first
respondent's affidavit. Having regard to this, the Court is of the opinion
that the parties have entered into a lawful and binding settlement.
6. The Court notices that the sale enuring in first respondent's favour
was confirmed by the R.O. on 18.05.2011. Having regard to the terms of
the settlement that are extracted above, the Court hereby directs the R.O. to
take appropriate consequential action in withdrawing/cancelling sale
confirmation/sale certificate issued in the first respondent's favour. The
R.O. shall, having regard to the payments made by the petitioner to the first
respondent and the statement made by the latter, also make appropriate
WP(C)2097/2015 Page 4
orders recording satisfaction of the first respondent's claim. Such orders
shall also expressly state in such event right, title and interest to the
property the sales certificate and confirmation of Sales Certificate and
registration of Sale Certificate if any, and any sale, affected by the
respondent no.1 in favour of any third party, in pursuance of the sale
certificate issued by the Ld. Recovery Officer in relation to property in
question i.e. land admeasuring 30.05 Acres in Survey No.210, 241, 24/1/1
to 3, 242/2 and 243 (New comprehensive survey No.210) situated at
Dhodipada, Morkhal Road, Village Morkhal, Silvasa in the Union Territory
of Dadar and Nagar Havelli; shall be that of the writ petitioner instead of the
first respondent.
7. The parties shall be present before the R.O. on 30.04.2015.
8. The writ petition as well as the pending applications are disposed of
in the above terms.
9. Dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
R.K.GAUBA, J
APRIL 07, 2015
mr
WP(C)2097/2015 Page 5
