DENA BANK Vs. AAIFR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) dated 30.12.2011, which held that the proceedings before Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) had not abated.

(3.) The brief facts are that M/s. Rajat Pharmachem Ltd., the second respondent had availed of credit facilities from various banks, including the petitioner bank. The petitioner bank had inter alia extended these credit facilities in February 2007. The transaction was secured through mortgage of the borrower's property by deposit of title deeds on 15.06.2007. It is averred that the petitioner enhanced the credit limits, subsequent to requests by the respondent through letters dated 12.05.2008 and 13.08.2008. Subsequently, its loans were even restructured in January 2009.