9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 2004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... national Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC) should have been granted liberty to proceed with the proceedings initiated by them under the SARFAESI Act and as the decision of the Apex Committee with regard to direction to the Canara Bank was taken behind their back for the purpose of considering rehabilitation package, the matter should have been remitted back to the Apex Level Committee to reconsider the matter instead directing to implement a decision which was not taken in accordance to the requirement of law, i.e. with the consent of all concerned, and even without taking note of various objections, including the objection of Canara Bank based on TEV report dated 30.05.2015, and various other issues involved in the matter. Appeal allowed. - Letters Patent Appeal No.316 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4748 of 2013 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 1887 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4748 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2017 - HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY For the Appellant : Mr. Dr. Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha-AAG 7, Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Limited to the International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC). Similarly, another assignment agreement was executed on 22.01.2011 between the appellant-International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. ( IARC) and the Bank of Baroda in the matter of assigning debts of M/s Eclat Industries Limited. After the aforesaid assignment agreements were completed, the appellant-company again by way of restructuring support finance granted sanction of Rs.60 lacs to the respondent no.1-writ petitioner M/s Eclat Industries Limited on 29.01.2011 and on 04.03.2011 the agreement for restructuring support finance was executed. When the account became non-performing asset on 11.01.2013, the appellant-Company issued notice to the writ petition-respondent No.1 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding payment of Rs.45,82,581/- on or before 31.12.2012 with respect to the restructuring finance. Thereafter on 25.01.2013, again a notice was issued for making a payment of Rs.55,32,49,453/- being outstanding in the term loan and working capital loan assigned to the writ petitioner- M/s Eclat Industries Limited by IDBI and Bank of Baroda. Thereafter, the appellant International Asset Recon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings of the SARFAESI Act were stayed and finally the writ court allowed the writ petition by the impugned order passed on 29.08.2016 and the direction issued was that as Apex Committee constituted under the Act of 2008 has already taken a decision with regard to creation of the corpus fund and a rehabilitation scheme in its meeting held on 28.10.2014 and as this decision of the Apex Committee is binding on all concerned in view of Section 5(4) of the Act of 2008, the Writ Court directed the Canara Bank, appellant in LPA No.1887 of 2016, to take immediate steps in accordance to the meeting held by the Apex Committee on 28.10.2014 and provide a term loan of Rs.2.80 crore and working capital loan of Rs.2.65 crore to the writ petitioner M/s Eclat Industries Limited within four weeks and the State Government was directed to implement the rehabilitation scheme in accordance to the decision taken on 28.10.2014 and as far as the proceedings initiated by the appellant International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC) is concerned, it was directed that immediately on release of payment, the amount shall be paid to the appellant International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken on 28.10.2014 assessing the cost of the project at Rs. 9 crore and odd and directing the Bank to pay a term loan of Rs.2.80 crore and a working capital loan of Rs.2.65 crore is not binding and the said decision cannot be enforced on them. However, learned counsel appearing for the original petitioner- respondent no.1 herein M/s Eclat Industries Limited argued that in the proceedings held in the State Level Committee dated 28.10.2014, both appellants International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC) and Canara Bank, were present, they were parties to the decision taken in the Apex Committee and, therefore, the appeals at their instance are not maintainable. It is the case of the respondent-writ petitioner M/s Eclat Industries Limited that once the Apex Committee had taken a decision after considering various aspects of the matter, indulgence now in these appeals at the instance of the appellants is not permissible. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and we have also gone through the detailed order passed by the learned Writ Court. The learned Writ Court from para 1 to 9 of its impugned order narrates the facts, as has been detailed by the parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not at all considered by the learned Writ Court in spite of the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Writ Court stayed the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act on an understanding that the writ petitioner-respondent herein M/s Eclat Industries Limited would pay entire amount of Rs. 2.5 crore to the appellant International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC) within a reasonable period of time which commitment was never fulfilled for the reason that right from 2014 till date, the commitment of the State Government to release the corpus fund has not been fulfilled. The State Government makes an excuse that Canara Bank has not released the term loan and the working capital loan and, therefore, the corpus fund cannot be released and as far as the objection of Canara Bank is concerned, we find that they are not a party to the decision that was taken by the Apex Committee on 28.10.2014, on the contrary, based on the report submitted by them along with letter dated 06.11.2014, they had objected to the assessment of the project at Rs.9.56 crore, when according to them, the cost of the project was found to be Rs.6.46 crore and based on that they had sanctioned a term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
