GODAWARI DEVI Vs. DEBTS ECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions assailing the recovery proceedings initiated by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ), under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( for short "the Act of 2002") for recovery of outstanding dues against the loan advanced to the proprietorship concern -M/s. Rajat Fashion Bazar, the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('the Tribunal') and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal ('Appellate Tribunal') in the proceedings under the Act of 2002 and the auction sale of secured assets by the secured creditor, SBBJ, were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that M/s. Rajat Fashion Bazar, a sole proprietorship concern of Smt. Godawari Devi, obtained the loan from Collectorate Branch of the SBBJ in the form of cash credit limit to the tune of Rs.5 lacs on 15.11.2000. Smt. Godawari Devi mortgaged her immovable property, a Nohra, converted into shop situated in Ward No.8 at Mela Darwaja Bus Stand, Vivekanand Marg, Pali. Shri Mohanlal, the husband of Smt. Godawari Devi stood as guarantor for the loan advanced. The borrower defaulted in repayment of loan after 11.7.02 and therefore, the loan account was declared 'Non Performing Asset' (NPA) and the SBBJ initiated the recovery proceedings against the borrower and its proprietor Smt. Godawari Devi and the guarantor Shri Mohanlal, by issuing a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002, on 10.10.12. At the same time, the SBBJ also filed a suit before the District Judge, Pali for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,66,417/ - against the borrower and the guarantor. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002, the possession of the secured asset was taken by the SBBJ on 12.1.05.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the action of the SBBJ, the borrower and the guarantor preferred a writ petition being No.1125/05 before this court. The writ petition stood dismissed by this court vide order dated 29.3.05 observing that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of important material fact in not disclosing whether the Bank has withdrawn the payment of Rs.4,68,000/ - by encashing the cheque issued by the petitioner borrower. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners therein, preferred a Special Appeal being No.125/05 before the Division Bench of this court. On 5.5.06, when the matter came up for hearing, the Division Bench taking sympathetic view extended an opportunity to the petitioners therein to deposit Rs.2.75 lacs towards the repayment of outstanding dues. After taking instructions from the petitioners, the counsel appearing on their behalf, made a statement before the court that the amount will be deposited within one week. The borrower and the guarantor failed to deposit the amount despite assurance being given to the court as aforesaid and that apart, on the next date of hearing i.e. on 23.5.06, when the court wanted to know as to whether they are ready and willing to deposit the amount, the counsel appearing on their behalf expressed inability to deposit the amount due. Accordingly, the Special Appeal preferred on behalf of the borrower and the guarantor as aforesaid, was dismissed by a Bench of this court vide order dated 23.5.06.