SURESH PILLAI Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated, in view of Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by issuing a show cause notice for arrest and detention of a judgment debtor, while executing a decree under Section 25(b) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, read with Regulation 35(1) of Debts Recovery Tribunal- II Chennai Regulations 2015 or not? Whether the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in recovery proceedings, de hors the availability of appeal remedy under the relevant statute or not? are the issues to be decided.

(2.) Admittedly, the writ petitioner and his wife, Directors of the Company have suffered a decree in O.A.No.61 of 2011 dated 17.10.2012 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. The decree passed on merits, after contest has become final, and no appeal has been preferred. The respondent Bank sought to execute the decree in DRC No.209/2012. During the pendency of the recovery proceedings, the writ petitioner offered for a One Time Settlement (OTS) by a letter dated 22.11.2013 and 17.12.2013, for 1.50 Crores. By letter dated 20.02.2014, the Bank offered to settle the loan for Rs.237.00 Lakhs under OTS. On behalf of his company, the writ petitioner, sought for confirmation for settlement for Rs.210 Lakhs, as per the negotiations with the Bank. On 08.09.2014, the Bank accepted the proposal for OTS, for a sum of Rs.2,15,00,000/- to be paid on or before 07.03.2015. Responding to the same, the writ petitioner acknowledged the confirmation and promised to settle the amount, as per the terms of acceptance and pay the full amount on or before 07.03.2015, as stipulated by the Bank, by his letter dated 15.09.2014. As per the terms agreed, in the event of default, the respondent Bank is entitled to recover the entire dues i.e., a sum of Rs.4,15,26,878.33/- together with future interest .

(3.) When the original application was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the respondent Bank has lodged a complaint with Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery against the writ petitioner and for using forged document as genuine and criminal misconduct by public servant, abusing official position by a public servant against unknown public servants, under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 and the same was registered in FIR No.RC.4(S)/2012/CBI/SCB/Chn dated 30.04.2012. The main allegation is that the writ petitioner conspired with his Auditors, fudged the balance sheet and cheated the Bank in securing the loan amount.