MODERN TIMES INDUSTRIES Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners questioning the validity of order dated 6.3.2009 passed by Debts Recover/Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, wherein preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Petitioners, that the proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, are barred by limitation, has been rejected, and the order dated 13.10.2008 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal has been affirmed.

(2.) Brief of background of the case is that in the year 1986, Petitioner No. 2 had commenced business of manufacturing and sale of wrist watches under the name and style of M/s. Modem Times Industries, and in this direction he established Small Scale Industrial Unit at Ram Nagar Road, Kashipur, District Nainital. The Petitioners took financial assistance vide sanction of credit facility on 11.12.1987, mortgage Was agreed on 21.12.1987, repayment of which was to be done as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Petitioner availed the said facility, since the amount of loan could not be repaid as was agreed, the Bank in its turn filed suit for recovery of the amount in question on 18.9.1990 before the civil Court. Said suit was decreed on 30.9.1991, and decree was prepared accordingly Said decree was put for execution in the year 1995 by means of application dated 29.10.1995, as date of preliminary decree is 30.9.1991 and that of final decree 20.5.1995. It was numbered as Execution Case No. 9 of 1995. After coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and constitution of Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, execution case No. 9 of 1995 was transmitted to the said Tribunal vide order dated 31.7.1998. Subsequently, records of the said execution case were transmitted to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad, where it was registered as Execution Case No. 15 of 2002. Record of Execution Case No. 15 of 2002 since 12.2.2002 remained pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. The case was taken up and in furtherance of execution of decree, Recovery Certificate was issued. Thereafter, the Petitioners moved application for restoration of the case on 12.9.2003, and they were blessed with interim order also, but the same was in default on 9.5.2006, to which further recall was moved on 20.6.2006, which came to be rejected on 12.9.2006. Petitioners had preferred appeal, but as Appellate forum was not functional, at the said juncture, Petitioners filed writ petition before this Court. Said writ petition had been allowed/disposed of on 22.11.2006 with a direction to decide application dated 12.9.2003 on merits, and orders dated 9.5.2006 and 12.9.2006 were directed to be kept in abeyance. Thereafter Debts Recovery Tribunal on 15.12.2006 restored the execution case No. 15 of 2002. While said proceedings had been ongoing, as per provisions of ' the SARFAESI Act, notice under Section 13 (2) had been given to the Petitioners on 25.9.2006; Petitioners submit that they submitted their reply on 27.11.2006. Petitioners had filed several applications before Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 10.1.2007, 11.1.2007 and 15.3.2007. Said applications were rejected, and against the same appeal had been preferred, and the same was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, and directive was given for fresh disposal of application dated 15.3.2007, within fifteen days. Condition was also imposed that benefit of said order would be given, only if Rs. 15 lacs was deposited. Petitioner preferred writ petition No. 54117 of 2007, questioning the validity of condition imposed, and this Court on 5.11.2007, reduced the said amount to Rs. 5 lacs, to be deposited within a week, and even the said meagre amount has not been deposited. Thereafter notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act was issued on 11.4.2008 Petitioners submit that the moment notice was given reply to the same was filed, and thereafter issue was decided that the proceedings were held not to be barred by limitation on 30.10.2008 by Debts Recovery Tribunal. Against the said order appeal had been filed and the same has also been dismissed. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The aforesaid writ petition had been dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 24.11.2010. Restoration application seeking recall of the aforesaid order has been allowed by means of a separate order of date, said order has been recalled and the writ petition has been restored to its original number, and as pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged, thereafter present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.