VINAY RUBBERS Vs. PUNJAB & SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two identical applications have been moved in both, the appeals for appropriate directions regarding pre deposit in compliance of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the RDDBFI Act). The respondent Bank in its replies has opposed to these applications. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent Bank had filed two applications T.A. No. 81/2002 and R.A. No. 286/2002 under Section 19 of the RDDFFI Act, for the recovery of certain amounts from the appellants herein. The Bank taking recourse to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act) and issuing notices under Section 13(2) of the said Act demanding Rs. 1,79,08,287/ - from appellant M/s. Vinay Rubber and Others and Rs. 91,52,198/ - from appellant M/s. SB Rubber Pvt. Ltd. and Others, as on 31.3.2005, also took actions under the said Act. Both the aforesaid companies, challenging the actions of the Bank, filed applications S.A. 125/2008 and S.A. 124/2008 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The learned Tribunal below disposed of all the applications filed by the Bank under the RDDBFI Act as well as by the appellants under the SARFAESI Act by a common judgment dated 19.3.2000 determining the amount of debt due in respect of both the loans at Rs. 55 lacs together with interest @ 10% p.a. on such sum with effect from 10.5.2002 till 31.3.2008 and directed the borrowers to pay Rs. 20 lacs within 10 days and the balance amount within 90 days from the date of receipt of that order. It was also directed that, in case of default of payment, the certificate of recovery (RC) shall be issued for the recovery of the entire determined amount at the contractual rate of interest from the date of filing till the payment in full. The borrower companies did not deposit any amount in compliance of the said order and filed application (R. A. No. 19/2008) on 17.7.2003 for review of the said order. The review application was, however, dismissed by the Tribunal below on 31.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeals challenging the order dated 31.12.2010 as well as the earlier order rendered on 19.3.2008. The delay in filing the appeals against the order dated 19.3.2000 has been condoned by this Tribunal on the condition of deposit of Rs. 75,000/ - in each appeal, vide order dated 25.1.2011. This Tribunal also passed a common order on applications for waiver of pre -deposit under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act on 14.2.2011 and directed the appellants to deposit 50% of the amount demanded in notices under Sections 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, i.e., Rs. 1,79,08,287/ - and Rs. 91,52,198/ - for admitting/entertaining the appeals. The appellants did not deposit any amount in compliance of the said order and, instead, filed the instant applications.

(2.) I have heard Mr. G.S. Aggarwal for the appellants/applicants and Mr. Satvinder Singh for the respondent Bank and perused the record.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. Aggarwal is that during the pendency of the review application the appellants had deposited Rs. 30 lacs with the respondent Bank by depositing Rs. 10 lacs each on 21.7.2008, 25.10.2008 and 26.4.2010 and a further sum of Rs 1.50 lacs was deposited with the respondent Bank on 8.2.2011 and as such a total sum of Rs. 31.50 lacs has been deposited, which is about 60% of the determined amount of Rs. 55 lacs. It has also been contended by him that if the amount of Rs. 10,12,131/ -, which was due to the appellants from the respondent Bank, is also added, then the total amount would be more than 75% of the said amount and as such the provisions of Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act stood fully complied with and the appeals are entitled to be entertained.