PARVESH JAIN Vs. IDBI BANK LTD & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated December 18, 2017 passed by the DRAT in Misc. Appeal No. 145/2017 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the IDBI Bank Limited and set aside the following order of the DRT:-

(2.) The facts as noted from the record are that Mr. Parvesh Jain (petitioner herein), Proprietor of Jain Tex & Fab had taken a loan from the respondent No.1 Bank. Initially, the sanctioned limit was Rs.430 lakhs, which was subsequently increased to Rs.630 lakhs in April, 2009 and further to Rs.10 Crores in May, 2010. Repayment of the loan amounts was secured by way of equitable mortgages of different properties by deposit of their title deeds with the respondent No.1 Bank.

(3.) It may be necessary to state here that before possession of the mortgaged properties could be taken, under the SARFAESI Act , on December 16/26, 2015, there was a One Time Settlement (OTS) between the Bank and the proprietor of the borrower firm whereby the Bank's Dy. General Manager Rajinder Singh agreed to accept the payment of Rs.775 lakhs only from the borrower as against the total outstanding dues of over 12 Crores rupees, which he owed to the Bank and also to release the Bank's charge over mortgaged properties including 85 yds. of plot in Mukesh Mkt., Gandhi Nagar. The borrower was to clear the entire dues as per the settlement within a period of three months. As the petitioner did not have the money to pay the Bank even as per the OTS, he entered into some understanding with the respondent No.2 namely Manak Chand Maheshwari whereby respondent No.2 agreed to purchase two plots of 85 sq. yards each, both of which were mortgaged with the Bank, and one was owned by Parvesh Jain and the other was owned by his wife namely Ms. Ruchi Jain, respondent no.3 herein. The petitioner wrote a letter dated January 05, 2016 to the Bank to release any one of the said two plots to begin with, as the respondent No.2 was ready with the money. The Bank's Dy. General Manager Mr. Rajinder Singh agreed to that request of the petitioner and released one of the two plots measuring 85 sq. yards owned by Ms. Ruchi Jian, respondent No.3 and thereafter the same was sold by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 herein in February, 2016 and he has also made part payment towards the satisfaction of the OTS amount. It appears that full amount of money payable to the Bank under the OTS was not paid by the borrower within the period within which it was agreed to be made and Rs.5.50 Crores only were paid to the Bank. The petitioner wanted a clearance from the Bank that he could go ahead to sell other properties as well, as he had some buyer ready to clear the balance OTS amount but the Bank did not agree to that request.