M/S Annapurna Malleables Pvt.Ltd.And ORS v. State Bank Of India And ANR.

[N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR J-'7°>3 ^_ _...

W.P. N07"'~ OF 2002

IN THE MATTER OF:-

M/SANNAPURNA MALLEABLES PRIVATE LIMITED, a Gompany duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office andworksat 19, New Industrial Area, Sarora, Ring Road No. 2, Raipur 493221 (C.G.) .-j^ ^^ aged?<^'.;...^-<1'

vw° SHRI KAPIRAJ SINGHANIA, 42 years, S.on of Shri Maioo Ram Ac Singhania, Shareholder and Managing of Director of Annapurna Malleables Pvt. Ltd. carrying on trade and business at 19,New Indystrial Area, Sarora, Ring Road No. 2;

Raipur 493221 (C.G.) .. PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE BANK OF INDIA, industrial Finance Branch.-Ravi Bhavan, Second Fioor, Jaistambh'Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) SMT, GEETHA KAZA,Aged 50 years wife of Shri P. Kaza ,Assistant General Manager, State Bank 6f India, Commercial Branch (formerly known as Industriala Finance Branch), Ravi Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur(C.G.) l^ RESPONDENTS K'jf w *.

•c^ES'KnK'v^swi'cX^SW^wt^^^im" ~^~ ~ _-

CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLES 226/227 QFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS

IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORAR1 ETC

ETC.

AND/OR FOR ORDER (S) AND/QR FO_R_DIRECTJQN {SJIN THE NATURE OF WRITS

^ ''•*, 2^^ NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WPNo.1118 of 2001 M/s Annapurna Malleables Pvt. Ltd.

-- Petitioner

Versus

State Bank Of India & Ors.

-- Respondent And WP N^.361ZOf200^ ^ M/s Annapurna Malleables Pvt. Ltd.

-- Petitioner Vs State Bank Of India And Others -- Respondent And WPNo;-t79SOf2002 r' !

M/s Annapurna Malleables Pvt.Ltd. & Ors -- Petitioner Vs State Bank Of India & Anr.

- Respondent For^Petitroners :

Shri Gourav Shrivastava with Shri Romir Sum1t Goyal, Advocates Shri Sanjay Agrawal with Shri P. R. Patankar and Shri Ashish Surana, Advocates for proposed party-Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board Bv

^•sss,/ g ^z 07/04/2016 By this common order, the aforestated three writ petitions are being disposed off as Writ Petition No.3612/2005 & Writ Petition No.1793/2002 are offshoot and consequential petitions of first Writ Petition No.1118/2001 . 2.

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1118/2001 seeking direction from the Court for one time settlement under the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India claiming that as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner is entitled to one time settleme'ot in respect of loan borrowed by the petitioner from the State Bank of India.

During the course of pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (In short "theAct, 2002") has came into force with effect from 21-06-2002. The respondent-bank therefore proceeded to realize the loan by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002. The second writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the notice and subsequent proceedings under the Actof 2002.

The bank, later on, proceeded to file Original Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 for recovery of loan against the petitioner. The third petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court assailing maintainability of proceedings mainly on the ground that since the petition has already remained pending before ttie Court on the question whether the petitioner is in debt or not, proceedings are not maintainable. 3.

The entire case of the petitioner rests on its claim of one time settlement under the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, which has been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for successor Bank.

2-^5 In course of time, proposed respondent-Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited claiming to be the assignee of the State Bank of India by virtue of assignment deed executed in its favour, has sought to be impleaded as respondent in these petitions. The impleadment is being opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner on several grounds including the ground that the assignment deed does not entitle the respondent-Kotak Mahindra Bank to be impleaded as party. He relied upon several authorities also.

4.

Learned counsel for respond'ent-bank submitted that in the O.A.No.130/2003 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, an application for substitution of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited on the basis of assignment deed has already been allowed on 03-12-2007. It is submitted that in the original application, the petitioner is oneofthe parties. 5.

First writ petition was filed before this Court in the year 2001 when the bank had not proceeded to file any suit for recovery of debt against the petitioner and also when the Act of2002 had not come into force. 6.

The subsequent events.which have now taken place, have been noticed by this Court. In the considered opinion ofthis Court, all the issues, which have been raised in W.P.No.1793/2002, can be examined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, while examining the claim of the respondent-Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has also filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 ofthe Act of 2002, challenging possession notice given by the respondent-Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited.

8.

In view of the subsequent developments and pendency of petitions filed

{/ ^GO by the bank as well as by the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the issues which have been raised in these petitions, can be examined by the Tribunal. The petitioner may pray before the Tribunal for framing of appropriate issues by filing its reply in the petition filed by the bank. The petitioner is also at liberty to challenge the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal with regard to impleadment of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited in such proceedings as may be available to it under the law.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this issue has already been raised by filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. Be that as it may, all the issues, which have been raised, can be decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal by framing appropriate issues depending upon the reply filed by the petitioner as also the reply filed by the respondent-bank in respective petitions filed by them, against each other. 10.

Reserving liberty to the parties to raise all the grounds which are being raised before this Court, in pending petition beforethe Debt Recovery Tribunal, all these petitions are disposed off.

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane