SIBA INTERNATIONAL Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution seeking to restrain the Respondent No.1-Bank from taking the physical possession of the two immovable properties which are in name of the Petitioner herein ('secured assets') and from taking further proceedings in pursuance of the Notice issued under Sec. 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act'). In addition, a direction is sought to stay the order dtd. 13/5/2022 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal - III ('DRT') in S.A. No. 208/21 wherein the DRT dismissed the application of the Petitioner seeking an interim order to restrain the Court Receiver from taking physical possession of the secured assets and praying for extension of time to pay the balance amount due and payable to the Respondent No.1- Bank.

(2.) The Petitioner was duly served by the Respondent No.1-Bank with a demand notice dtd. 15/6/2021 under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding an amount of Rs.5,55,83,476.46 along with interest from 1/6/2021. The Petitioner filed an application bearing no. SA No. 208/2021 before DRT. In the meantime, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MA No. 151/121 passed an order dtd. 17/12/2021 on an application filed by Respondent No. 1, Bank under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act appointing Court Receivers and permitting the Respondent No.1-Bank to take over the physical possession of the secured asset.

(3.) The DRT initially vide order dtd. 4/2/2022 dismissed the Petitioner's interim application seeking to injunct the Court Receiver from taking physical possession of secured assets. However, upon a further application made by the Petitioner, DRT vide subsequent order dtd. 17/2/2022 granted a conditional stay subject to the Petitioner making a deposit of Rs.40.00 lakhs with the Respondent No.1-Bank. Finally, vide order dtd. 13/5/2022, DRT dismissed the said interim application after taking note that as against the outstanding sum of Rs.5.50 crores (approximately) the Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.1.50 crores.