NAKODAR AGRO FOODS Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that one M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills, Village Pandori Khas, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar was the borrower against whom the respondent had initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act") and recalled the outstanding amount of Rs. 15,67,19,642.12 paisa by way of notice dated 07.12.2016 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act. The borrower could not clear the outstanding dues of the respondent-Bank and therefore, out of five mortgaged properties, one property i.e. Factory, Land and Building of Rice Sheller, measuring 28 Kanal 18 Maria situated in Village Pandori Khas, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar, was auctioned on 31.07.2018 in which Parmodh Kumar, partner of petitioner No. 1, was the highest bidder. After the confirmation of bid, 25% of the bid amount was deposited and remaining 75% of the bid amount was to be deposited within 15 days for the issuance of the Sale Certificate. The period of 15 days was to expire on 15.08.2018 but before the said date, petitioner No. 1 made a representation for extension of time in terms of Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short "the Rules"). The request made by petitioner No. 1 was accepted by the respondent and the period for depositing 75% of the bid amount was extended by 89 days to be calculated w.e.f. 31.07.2018. The last date of the extended period fell on 28.10.2018 which incidentally happened to be a Sunday. During this interregnum, petitioner No. 2 (Private Limited Company) came into being. It made a request to the respondent that on the payment of remaining 75% of the bid amount, Sale Certificate may be issued in its name. It is submitted that as per e-mail dated 22.10.2018 sent by the respondent, the prayer made by the petitioner No. 2 for issuance of Sale Certificate in favour of the private limited company instead of its partner was under consideration and in this regard reference could be had to the following extract taken from the said e-mail dated 22.10.2018:-

(2.) It is submitted that before the petitioners could have taken the appropriate steps in this regard, impugned order dated 26.10.2018 was passed and the amount deposited as 25% of the bid amount was forfeited. The prayer made by the petitioners for the extension of time for further 30 days was also declined on the plea that further extension was not permissible even in law.

(3.) Aggrieved against the said decision of the respondent-Bank, the petitioners have challenged the letters dated 22.10.2018 and 23.10.2018 and noting dated 26.10.2018, inter alia, on the ground that as per Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short 'the Act of 1897') if the last date of the prescribed period falls on a holiday then the next working day is considered to be last date. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon two decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of "HUDA and another Vs. Babeswar Kanhar and another" 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 170 and in the case of "Mohd. Ayub Vs. State of U.P. and others", 2009(17) SCC 70.