NABA KUMAR SARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are the erstwhile Directors of a company, namely, M/s Annada Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. have filed the instant writ petition assailing the Bakijai proceedings being Bakijai Case No.B-16/2009 pending before the respondent No.2 as well as the order dtd. 28/3/2018 passed therein.

(2.) The brief facts of the instant case as could be seen from the perusal of the pleadings on records are that the petitioners were the Directors of a Company, namely, M/s Annada Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. which has its registered office at Chowkidinghee, Dibrugarh-786001. For the purpose of running the Tea Estate owned by the M/s Annada Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'the Company'), during the year 2006-07, the said Company had availed financial assistance in the form of block advance from the respondent No.5 which is the Cooperative Society. In that regard a few loan agreements were executed. Owing to financial crunch, the Company had defaulted in repayment of the loan and thereafter a Bakijai proceedings was initiated against the then Managing Director of the Company being the petitioner No.1 herein before the respondent No.2. Accordingly, a notice under Sec. 7 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 (for short, 'the Act of 1913') with a copy of a demand certificate to the tune of Rs.64,40,193.00 on 19/1/2009 was issued. It further appears that the said proceedings was initiated on the basis of a requisition made under Sec. 5 of the Act of 1913 by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, i.e. the respondent No. 4. In the said Bakijai proceedings, the petitioner No.1 who was the then Managing Director of the Company filed an objection against the notice under Sec. 7 of the Act of 1913 on 19/2/2009 and disputed the demand made in the certificate. However, the records further appear that the Company undertook to make payment in installments on the basis of a settlement agreement dtd. 31/8/2009 executed between the Company and the Respondent No.5 whereby it was agreed that the certificate amount would be repaid in installments. Pursuant thereto, the Company paid three numbers of installments amounting to Rs.1,00,000.00 each. It has also been alleged that the terms of the settlement however stood modified by subsequent arrangements between the parties. It was also alleged that the Company had made payment of Rs.24,30,419.00.

(3.) This Court finds it relevant to take note of another very relevant aspect of the matter. The Company had taken some loan from the respondent No.6 bank. Being unable to repay the said loan, the respondent No.6 initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act of 2002') in respect of a alleged default to the tune of Rs.2,82,82,612.63 by issuing a notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Act of 2002. As the Company failed to do the needful in terms with the notice issued under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act of 2002, proceedings under Sec. 13 (4) of the Act of 2002 were initiated and a notice was issued by the Authorized Officer of respondent No. 6 on 20/6/2015 calling for offers to take over the management of the Company. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of that the said notice is a part of the record and has been enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The relevant portion of the said notice is quoted herein under for the sake of convenience: