Delhi High Court
M/S Sai Precious Gems & Jewel vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 8 April, 2015
$~16&17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on 8th April, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 1432/2015
M/S SAI PRECIOUS GEMS & JEWEL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Pratiti Rungta, Mr.Sumit Pargal
and Ms.Heena Dua, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 2256/2015
PRATITI RUNGTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.K.Rungta Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Prashant Singh and Ms.Heena
Dua, Advs.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Khanna and Ms Asmita
Kumar, Adv. for R-1.
Mr.Sanjeev Bhansdari, Mr.Dhananjay
Kumar Singh and Mr. Deepak
Mishra, Advs. for R-2 and R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. It is stated that Local Commissioner has complied with the directions
and has prepared the inventory. Its reports are, however, not a part of the
record.
2. This Court intervened in this matter at the behest of the borrower who
WP(C)1432 &2256/2015 Page 1
is writ petitioner in this case, on the ground that an ex parte order of seizure
and sale of its jewellery was passed on 23.01.2015 by the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). After considering the circumstances -
including the petitioner's statement that it had approached the respondent
bank with a proposal for One Time Settlement (OTS), this Court on
12.02.2015 had passed an interim order staying the seizure and sale of the
property, jewellery and other articles in the petitioner's property bearing No.
A-14, Lower Ground Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
3. On 09.03.2015, the petitioner was directed to comply with previous
order dated 12.02.2015 and ensure that the premises were available for visit
by Local Commissioner
4. It was submitted during the course of the proceedings that the
petitioner is not disputing the liability i.e. Rs.80,07,539/- as on 17.12.2011
when the notice under Section 13(2) Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(SARFAESI) was issued. However, it is stated that the petitioner disputes
the interest liability and this Court may require the DRAT to hear the
submissions and findings of the fact to the extent of such liability. (Learned
counsel for the bank submitted that till date petitioner has not disputed any
amount). This Court has considered the submissions of Mr.N.K.Arora, one
of the guarantors of the petitioner who is present; he also is the father of the
petitioner's proprietor. Having regard to the instructions given to the
petitioner's counsel and submissions made by her, this Court is of the
opinion that in view of the admission here, following directions are
warranted.
(i) On the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50 lakhs on or before
WP(C)1432 &2256/2015 Page 2
30.04.2015, the respondent shall not take any action towards
securing possession of the assets or put it on the sale.
(ii) The petitioner shall deposit the remaining amount after the
payment of Rs.50 lakhs out of Rs.80 lakhs on or before
15.05.2015.
(iii) The DRT is hereby directed to render its findings limited to the
question of appropriate rate of interest and penal interest
payable by petitioner having regard to the above developments.
(iv) The petitioner's sole proprietor shall furnish an
affidavit/undertaking to comply with the above within a week
from today. All rights and contentions of the parties in respect
of the controversies before the DRT i.e. interest amount
payable by the petitioner are reserved. The bank is directed -
subject to the compliance by the petitioner of the above
direction of deposit of Rs.80 lakhs - not to take further action
awaiting the decision of DRT in O.A.No.144/2011.
5. In the light of the above order, the proceedings before the DRAT have
become infructuous. Bank is directed not to initiate any action towards
taking possession of the property, moveable or immovable, whether they
belong to the petitioner or to the first guarantor, and shall await the final
decision of the DRT for this purpose.
6. DRT would also decide the bank's claim if any towards the legal
expenses incurred by it. Petitioner is at liberty to contest the same in which
separate findings would be recorded in this regard.
7. It is agreed by all the parties that in the light of the above order
WP(C)1432 &2256/2015 Page 3
nothing presently survives for consideration before the DRAT as between
the parties. DRAT directions shall be treated as infructuous and accordingly
directed to be disposed of.
8. In the event of default in compliance of the above direction, it is open
to the respondent bank to avail of all legal recourse in this Court. It is
clarified that in the event of such default the bank shall not take any action
towards respondent No. 2 and 3 without first exhausting its action in respect
of petitioner's assets i.e. jewellery and other immovable articles.
9. The said affidavit/undertaking of petitioner shall also expressly state
that in the event of default, the petitioner would hand over the possession of
the jewellery to the bank for realisation of its dues.
10. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
W.P.(C)2256/2015
1. We have heard the submissions of the parties. The petitioner in this
proceeding appeared as a counsel in W.P.(C)1432/2015. She is aggrieved
by certain observations made by the DRAT with regard to the conduct of the
proceedings before it and the counsel's role.
2. The DRAT had decided an application on 11.02.2015 declining the
request for deferment/suspension of its previous order by which
Commissioners were appointed to visit the borrower's premises, seize
jewellery and other movable assets and put them to auction. The borrower -
who was represented by the petitioner moved this Court in
W.P.(C)1432/2015. On 12.02.2015, this Court suspended the order of the
DRAT. The DRAT by its order on 02.03.2015, inter alia, observed as
follows:
WP(C)1432 &2256/2015 Page 4
"Instead of making any deposit, the borrower
chose to challenge the orders dated 23rd January,
2015 as well as 11th February, 2015 by filing Writ
Petition No.1432 of 2015. The order passed by the
Hon'ble High Court on this Writ Petition has been
placed on record of this file on 16th February,
2015 without moving any proper application. It
has repeatedly-been stressed by giving directions
to the Registry of this Tribunal not to accept any
document unless there is judicial order, permitting
the party to place on record any document or
proper application is filed for placing on record a
particular document. I fail to understand as to how
the Registry is disobeying the orders in this
regard. These are judicial orders and disobedience
thereof may invite action against the responsible
official(s), who dare(s) to disobey the same.
Not only this, a very disturbing feature is brought
to the notice of this Tribunal by the counsel for the
appellant and the Bank that the borrower had
applied for certified copy of the order dated 11
February, 2015 on 13th February. 2015. The copy
was supplied on 13th February, 2015 to the counsel
for the respondent / borrower. In the Writ Petition
typed copy of this order was filed as an annexure
without disclosing in the Writ Petition as to how
the copy was available with the counsel on
12th February, 2015 when mention was made for
listing the Writ Petition. It appears that the
counsel has adopted some illegal means to obtain
copy of this order, may be with the connivance of
some officials of the staff of this Tribunal. This
situation is unacceptable. This conduct may expose
the person concerned for criminal liability as well.
Before issuing any further direction, it is
considered appropriate to direct the Registrar of
WP(C)1432 &2256/2015 Page 5
this Tribunal to hold an enquiry in this regard to
find out as to how typed copy was obtained even
before supply of certified copy. This could not have
been possible unless judicial file was made
accessible to the counsel. The Registrar will
submit his report before the adjourned date. The
Registrar would be at liberty to record the
statement of the advocates concerned to arrive at
proper and appropriate findings. Further direction
in this regard would follow once this fact finding
report is submitted."
3. The petitioner who appeared as counsel is aggrieved not by the
institution of an inquiry but the observations which according to her reflects
perversity on her conduct.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on her behalf submits that these
observations prejudicially amount to pre-decision on the issue and
irreparably result into adverse effect on her career. On the first date of
hearing, this Court had directed stay of further proceedings in the fact
finding enquiry and at the same time required the DRAT to transmit the
record of the proceedings in Appeal No. 398/2013 pending before it.
Besides, this court has considered the material available. The petitioner
urges that the order in W.P.(C)1432/2015 was dictated in open Court and on
that day its steno was available and present in Court who noted the
proceedings. To support this contention the petitioner has placed on record
the extract of the steno's notes. It is submitted that a comparison between
the order as filed along with W.P.(C) 1432/2015 on 12.02.2015, with the
certified copy made available by the DRAT subsequently on 13.02.2015 in
fact support the petitioner's contention.
WP(C)1432 &2256/2015 Page 6
5. This Court has considered the comparison between the steno's notes,
which are a part of the record in the present petition and based on which the
copy of the order dated 11.02.2015 was filed along with W.P.(C)
1432/2015, and the certified copy made available to this Court now in the
present case. The comparison itself would show that there is no significant
difference. Copy of the order dated 11.02.2015 filed in the first instance
was enclosed as Annexure A. The petitioner had in fact sought exemption
from filing certified copy by stating that the certified copy of the order was
not available at that time. Taking into account the totality of the
circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the arguments of the
petitioner are creditable and plausible. At the same time, the Court is of the
view that the apprehensions which made the Chairperson of the DRAT in
adopting the course that he did in instituting an inquiry cannot be altogether
deprecated. While doing so, possibly the anguish felt by him was expressed
rather sharply. This Court is, however, not inclined to take the matter
further and would instead request the DRAT to close this matter completely
given these circumstances. Consequently, such observations shall stand
expunged, as far as petitioner is concerned.
6. It is clarified that it is open to the Chairperson of the DRAT to take
such action as may be necessary This order shall not, however, in any
manner be construed by the Chairperson of the DRAT as impediment to its
power to take such action as may be necessary in other cases where it is
essential to do so.
7. This Court is also of the opinion that DRAT need not have adversely
commented on practice of placing on record the copy of this Court's order
in the manner adopted in the present case. It appears that the procedure in
WP(C)1432 &2256/2015 Page 7
DRT and the DRAT required the concerned party to move an application.
This Court is of the opinion that a certified copy or a copy of the order of
this Court or a superior Court can be duly filed with an index duly signed by
the representative or the counsel of the concerned party.
8. W.P.(C)2256/2015 stands disposed of in the above terms.
9. Dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
R.K.GAUBA, J
APRIL 08, 2015
mr
WP(C)1432 &2256/2015 Page 8
