MORION CHEMICALS LTD Vs. UCO BANK, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 is a defaulter borrower Company and is aggrieved of the order dtd. 4/6/2013 (Annexure P-9) passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (in short "DRAT") under Sec. 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2002"), vide which its Appeal No. 33 of 2012 has been dismissed, while the Appeal No. 437 of 2011 filed by respondent No.6 (Auction Purchaser) and Appeal No.438 of 2011 filed by respondent No. 1 to 3 (secured creditors and its officers) has been allowed and the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short "DRT") dtd. 15/12/2011 (Annexure P-7) passed in SA No. 31 of 2008, filed by the petitioners (defaulting borrowers) has been set aside. As a result of thereof, sale conducted by respondent No. 1 (secured creditor) in favour of the auction purchaser (respondent No. 5) has been upheld, which was set aside by the DRT vide its order dtd. 15/12/2011 (P-7).

(2.) Briefly, the undisputed facts of the instant case are that petitioner No. 1 is a borrower Company, whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are its Directors. It had availed credit facilities from respondent No.1-UCO Bank (Secured Creditor). In order to secure the same, two properties were mortgaged i.e. Industrial Property No. B-4+5, Industrial Focal Point, Dera Bassi, owned by petitioner No. 1-Borrower Company (property in question) and SCO No.44, Sector-30-C, Chandigarh owned by guarantors, namely, Smt. Achal and Yogesh Bansal. Since, petitioner No.1 was unable to repay the credit facilities, its loan account was declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 31/3/2006 by UCO Bank (R-l). On 19/8/2006, respondent No.1 issued Notice Under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act, 2002, claiming an amount of Rs.3,52,62,965.60 as on 31/3/2006. On 29/11/2006, notice under Sec. 13 (4) of the Act, 2002, was issued by respondent No.1, vide which symbolic possession was taken of both the mortgaged properties.

(3.) On 26/12/2006, a representation was submitted by petitioner No.1-Company to respondent No.1 (Annexure R-l/7), wherein petitioner No.1-Company sought 3 months' time period to resolve the financial stress and regularize the account and further stated that in case if the petitioner No.1 fails to do so, the Bank may initiate further steps to recover the debt of the Company.