MEENA PANDEY Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Chaudhary submits that the Delhi High Court vide order dated 9.10.2013 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2454/2013, has directed that this appeal be heard on the basis of the deposit already made by the appellant with the Bank, as such the waiver application (I.A. No. 255/2013) has become infructuous. In view of the submission of Mr. Chaudhary, the application stands disposed of accordingly. Heard parties' Counsel on admission. This appeal has been directed against an interim order dated 7.3.2013 passed in the S.A. whereby the Tribunal below has restrained the respondent Bank from taking the physical possession of the property in question subject to deposit by the appellants of the remaining amount, as per the settlement letter dated 4.12.2012, before 15.4.2013, out of which 50% was to be deposited by 31.3.2013.

(2.) MR . Chaudhary points out that a C.C. Limit of Rs. 98 lacs was sanctioned by the Bank to M/s. RKP Enterprise, a sole proprietorship firm of the appellant's husband, for which the appellant had stood as a guarantor and had also mortgaged her property with the Bank; that the borrower had received a notice dated 13.3.2012 from the Bank's Counsel intimating that the account was running irregular and had become overdue by Rs. 34.50 lacs and it was asked to deposit the overdue amount failing which the account would be classified as NPA; that the borrower thereafter received a demand notice dated 5.5.2012, issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, claiming an amount of Rs. 1,39,73,503/ - stating that the account had been classified as NPA but the date of NPA was not disclosed; that when the Bank initiated measures under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and took symbolic possession of the mortgaged properties, the appellant filed the S.A. and the learned Tribunal below granted interim protection on the condition of deposit of Rs. 30 lacs with the Bank, which the appellant could not comply in full and only Rs. 2 lacs were deposited; that the borrower thereafter approached the Bank and a settlement was arrived at on deposit of Rs. 66 lacs and interest towards overdue amount vide letter dated 4.12.2012 and the Bank had agreed to regularise the account after the deposit of the said amount; that the said amount was to be deposited in a phased manner and the last instalment was to be paid by 25.3.2013; that the appellant failed to adhere to the payment schedule and could deposit only a sum of Rs. 23 lacs; that when the Bank approached the CMM under Section 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the mortgaged properties, the appellant again approached the Tribunal below by filing interim application seeking a restraint order against the Bank from taking forcible possession of both the mortgaged properties and sought extension of time for depositing the balance settlement amount and the learned Tribunal below has allowed the time up to 15.4.2013 by the order impugned subject to deposit of the entire remaining amount as per the settlement letter, with a direction that 50% of the amount to be deposited by 31.3.2013.

(3.) MR . Jain, on the other hand, contends that the account in question was classified as NPA on 31.3.2012 as it remained irregular for much more than 90 days prior to that date and it was rightly classified as NPA. He submits the statement of account shows that certain payments were made by the borrower through cheques and the amount thereof were duly credited but when all those cheques were dishonoured, the credit entries were reversed and the appellant cannot take the benefit of those credit entries. He also submits that the order impugned clearly shows that the appellant had asked for the extension of time for payment of amount only uptil 15.4.2013, which was allowed, as such the appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved of the said order and she has no cause of action for this appeal qua the said order. Mr. Jain further contends that the S.A. is pending disposal before the Tribunal below where in all the issues raised by the appellant shall be considered and adjudicated upon and since appeal has been directed against an interim order wherein no legal infirmity or illegality has been pointed out by the appellant, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.