9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 449 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking to restrain the Respondent No.1-Bank from taking the physical possession of the two immovable properties - HELD THAT - The Petitioner herein has acted in gross violation of the undertakings dated 21st September, 2022 and 02nd June, 2023 filed in the present petition. Further, as noted above, the Petitioner was served with a demand notice dated 15th June, 2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. However, the Petitioner despite having failed to point out any illegality in the actions taken by the Respondent No.1-Bank under the SARFAESI Act, has succeeded in preventing the Respondent No.1-Bank from proceeding in law against taking physical possession of secured assets by making representations before DRT and this Court with respect to its intention to clear the dues. However, as is evident from the proceedings of the DRT and the orders passed in this petition, the Petitioner has failed to avail the extension of time granted by the Court as well as the Respondent No.1-Bank. The prayer sought in this petition for seeking extension of time to make payments to Respondent No. 1, Bank stood satisfied with passing of the orders dated 13th September, 2022 and 25th May, 2023. However, the Petitioner having failed to avail the said extension of time is not entitled to the consequential relief of restraint against the Respondent No.1-Bank - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Restraint on Bank from taking physical possession of secured assets under SARFAESI Act. 2. Dismissal of interim application by DRT seeking to restrain Court Receiver. 3. Appeal before DRAT without depositing pre-deposit amount. 4. Failure to make pre-deposit and approach High Court for relief. 5. Default in payment leading to Bank seeking possession of secured assets. 6. Dismissal of writ petition for non-prosecution and subsequent restoration plea. 7. Undertakings given by the Petitioner and subsequent defaults in payments. Issue 1: The Petitioner sought to restrain the Bank from taking physical possession of secured assets under the SARFAESI Act by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The Petitioner had been served with a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, and various orders were passed by the DRT and High Court regarding the possession of the assets. Despite interim reliefs granted, the Petitioner failed to make necessary payments leading to the Bank seeking possession of the assets. Issue 2: The DRT initially dismissed the Petitioner's interim application to restrain the Court Receiver but later granted a conditional stay subject to a deposit. However, the DRT ultimately dismissed the application due to insufficient deposit made by the Petitioner, leading to the Bank's pursuit of taking possession of the assets. Issue 3: The Petitioner appealed before DRAT without depositing the pre-deposit amount as required under the SARFAESI Act. The DRAT directed the Petitioner to make the pre-deposit before hearing the appeal, highlighting procedural requirements under the Act. Issue 4: The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking relief without making the necessary pre-deposit, leading to agreements on payment terms. However, the Petitioner failed to adhere to the agreed payment schedule, resulting in the Bank seeking permission to take possession of the secured assets due to the Petitioner's default. Issue 5: The Petitioner's failure to make payments as per the agreed schedule led to the Bank seeking possession of the secured assets through Court proceedings. Despite various undertakings and agreements, the Petitioner defaulted on payments, resulting in the Bank pursuing recovery through legal means. Issue 6: The writ petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution, and subsequent attempts were made to restore the petition. The Petitioner provided undertakings and made commitments to make payments, but repeated defaults led to the Bank seeking recovery through auction proceedings. Issue 7: The Petitioner repeatedly defaulted on payments despite commitments made through undertakings before the Court. The Petitioner's failure to honor payment schedules and dishonored cheques led to the Bank pursuing recovery measures. The Court noted the Petitioner's violations of undertakings and dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to commitments made before the Court.
|
