9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 02.07.2014 to approach the High Court, such application was filed only in February, 2017. There is no explanation as to why such application was not filed for three years. It is obvious that this application was filed only after the sale certificate was issued and KMBL sent various communication to Alchemist to pay a sum of ₹ 4.5 crores to it. Having held so, we are of the view that it may not be necessary to take action against the alleged contemnors under the Contempt of Courts Act, in view of the fact that pursuant to the order of this Court they have now deposited ₹ 4.5 crores. The amount of ₹ 4.5 crores deposited by Alchemist shall be paid to KMBL along with interest, if any, accrued thereupon - contempt petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings and the SARFAESI Act. Both were heard together. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the borrower Company. A Letters Patent Appeal No.1755 of 2010 (LPA for short) was filed by the borrower Company. In this appeal, an interim order was passed on 09.08.2011, relevant portion of which reads as follows: 13. Accordingly, we direct that without prejudice to rights and contentions of the parties, the appellant must pay a sum of ₹ 12 crores to Alchemist and ₹ 6.5 crores to Kotak Mahindra. The creditors will be at liberty to proceed to recover the same by sale of land appurtenant to plant and machinery which is said to be about 18 acres. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof within a further period of eight weeks from the date of acceptance of the offer. 3. However, if the offer made by respondent No.2 is not acceptable to the petitioner, it will be open to the said respondent to take steps for disposal of the land, as directed in the impugned order, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. 4. Out of the amount(s) so realized, respondent No.2 shall pay to respondent No.9, the balance amount of ₹ 4.5 crores, as directed by the High Court. 5. The amount(s), so received by the said two respondents, shall, in the first instance, be appropriated towards the principal amount due from the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the latest development in the matter, these Interlocutory Applications have become infructuous and are disposed of as such. SLP( C) No.34290 of 2011 The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the judgments delivered by this Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon Ors (2010) 8 SCC 110 , Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 782 and General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Ltd. Anr. Vs. Ikbal Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 83, the appeal which has been filed by the petitioner in the High Court should be allowed. However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents did not agree to the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount is due to the petitioner Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and the scope and purport of the settlement agreement will be considered by the Court. xxx xxx xxx 10. KMBL contends that Alchemist, by not paying ₹ 4.5 crores in terms of the order dated 07.05.2012, is guilty of contempt. The stand of the alleged contemnors is that Alchemist being an assignee of IFCI and IDBI, is entitled to recovery of 98.12% of the total outstanding proceedings, whereas the KMBL is entitled to recover 1.88%. In the alternative, it is submitted that as per the claim filed by KMBL it is entitled to 9.76% out of the total recoveries. The case of the Alchemist is that KMBL has already been paid ₹ 2 crores which is much in excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion was filed only in February, 2017. There is no explanation as to why such application was not filed for three years. It is obvious that this application was filed only after the sale certificate was issued and KMBL sent various communication to Alchemist to pay a sum of ₹ 4.5 crores to it. Having held so, we are of the view that it may not be necessary to take action against the alleged contemnors under the Contempt of Courts Act, in view of the fact that pursuant to the order of this Court they have now deposited ₹ 4.5 crores. 13. It was urged on behalf of the Alchemist that in terms of order dated 08.02.2019, the alleged contemnors contention that no amount is due to KMBL has to be considered. We are not incline ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
