NAGESWARA CHEMICALS Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent- Recovery Officer in issuing Form 13 passed in R.P.No.232 of 2005 in O.A.No.1100 of 1999 dated 11.7.2011 proposing to conduct public auction on 24.8.2011 in respect of plot No.65 admeasuring 288 sq. yards, part of Sy.No.4 situated at Gokale Nagar, Ramanthapur village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, pending the application in I.A.No.1477 of 2009 in I.A.No.895 of 2005 in O.A. No.1100 of 1999 filed for setting aside the ex parte order, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) IT is the case of the writ petitioners that the 1st petitioner-firm availed loan facility from the 3rd respondent-Bank by hypothecating plant and machinery and movables and also by mortgaging immovable properties with the Bank. As the petitioners failed to repay the loan amount, the 3rd respondent - Baink filed O. A.No.1190 of 1999 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in which, the petitioners were set ex parte and hence, the Tribunal allowed the OA. and directed the petitioners and others to pay,a sum of Rs. 1,06,04,857-52 ps., with costs and interest. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.No.895 of 2005 for setting aside the ex parte orders and the same was dismissed for default and thereafter, the petitioners filed I. A.No.1477 of 2009 to set aside the default order along with an application to condone the delay. As the notices were not served on some of the respondents; the Tribunal ordered notice by way of substitute service and thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time and ultimately, it was posted to 2.9.2011. But however, the matter could not be taken up, as there was no Presiding Officer to the Tribunal. Thus, the said application is kept pending. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed an application before the Bank for settling the matter under one time settlement scheme, but the Bank declined to accept the same and the 2nd respondent has brought the property to sale. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) THE main grievance of the petitioners is that pending the application viz., I.A.No.1477 of 2009 in I.A.No.895 of 2005 in O.A.No.1100 of 1999 before the Tribunal, the respondents proposed to conduct public auction for sale of the mortgaged properties.