SRI INTERNATIONAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners have filed these two writ petitions challenging the common order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in R.A.(SA).No.17 of 2022 and R.A.(SA).No.18 of 2022, respectively.

(2.) The first petitioner is a partnership firm and the second and third petitioners are its partners. They availed packing and cash credit loan facility from the first respondent in the year 2017 and the said loan facilities were also renewed by a sanction letter dtd. 29/3/2019 to the tune of Rs.4 crores and the fourth respondent stood as a guarantor. Four properties were mortgaged as collateral security for availing of the said facilities. The petitioners failed to repay the amount as per schedule and as such the loan accounts became irregular and it was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 25.11.2018.

(3.) Mr.Omprakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners would submit that the borrowers have not left the matter unagitated. They had approached the DRT, at the earliest point of time, challenging the sale notice. Pending the proceedings, now they have paid the entire amount due, therefore, he would submit that firstly the sale in favour of the auction purchasers is illegal and violative of Rule 9(4) of the rules. As the auction purchasers did not pay the balance 75% of the amount within 15 days from the date of the order of this Court in C.R.P. No.2187 of 2020 i.e., 15 days with effect from 15.12.2020, and the balance 75% being paid only on 31.03.2022, the auction sale itself is invalid. Further, the petitioners being the borrowers having paid the entire amount due should be permitted to redeem the property from the bank. As a matter of fact, the entire amount has been paid along with the further interest till the date of payment. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Concern Readymix, rep. by its Proprietor, Smt. Y. Sunitha Vs. Authorised Officer, Corporation Bank and Another,2018 SCC OnLine, Hyd 783. to contend that the right of redemption is also otherwise available as per the provisions contained under the Transfer of Property Act. He would further submit that the possession of the property is still with the writ petitioners/borrowers. In spite of the application under Section 14 being filed to take physical possession of the property, no steps have been taken till date and the borrowers continued to be in possession of this property. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Pal Alloys & Metal India Private Limited and Others Vs. Allahabad Bank and others,2021 SCC OnLine P &H 2733. wherein the view taken by Andra Pradesh High Court was accepted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He, therefore, prayed that since the entire amount has already been paid by the writ petitioners and they should be permitted to redeem the property.