Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.APP. 21/2014 and CM No.6667/2014
M/S. CREW B.O.S. PRODUCTS LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee,
Advocate.
versus
DBS BANK ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2014
passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition
No.52/2013 whereby the said Company Petition was admitted to
hearing and a direction was issued for publication of the
advertisement of the said petition in the ‘Statesman’ (English Edition)
and ‘Jansatta’ (Hindi Edition) for 14.07.2014. It was, however,
directed that the said order shall not be given effect to for a period of
two weeks from the date thereof in order to enable the Appellant to
clear the outstanding dues or arrive at an amicable settlement.
CO. APP. 21/2014 Page 1 of 4
2. We note at the outset that notice of the petition was directed to
be issued to the Respondent by an order dated 30.01.2013. The
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent appeared on
02.05.2013 and sought time to file a reply to the petition. Six weeks
time was granted to file a reply, but no reply was filed within the
aforesaid period of time. On 27.08.2013, the Respondent was granted
another two weeks time to file a reply as a last opportunity. Yet the
Respondent again failed and neglected to file a reply to the petition.
On 06.11.2013, once again two weeks time was granted to the
Respondent to file a reply. Despite this, the Respondent did not file its
reply. In the circumstances, the right to file reply was closed by the
learned Company Judge on 14.03.2014 resulting in the passing of the
impugned order. The averments made in the petition are thus
uncontroverted.
3. We further note that there is no dispute between the parties that
an original application being O.A. No.302/2011, before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal-II under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due
to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) for
recovery of 13,52,63,763.66 together with costs, pendente lite and
`
future interest etc. culminated in a settlement between the parties.
4. It is also not in dispute that as per the said settlement the
Appellant was to pay ` 13,69,92,609/- alongwith interest in three
st
instalments and the final instalment was to be paid on or before 31
December, 2011 in the sum of ` 7,80,63,208.00. The said consent
order was passed pursuant to a joint application filed by the parties
herein.
CO. APP. 21/2014 Page 2 of 4
5. The Appellant paid the first instalment of ` 1,01,49,041.00 to
the Respondent and also paid a sum of ` 65,00,000.00 towards part
payment of the second instalment. The Appellant, however, could not
pay part of the second instalment and the third instalment, and thus
failed to comply with the settlement.
6. On 09.05.2012, the Appellant moved an application under
Section 19(25) of the Act, before the DRT-II, for modification of the
compromise decree dated 15.12.2011, explaining that the sum could
not be paid owing to the rejection of the loan application of the
Appellant. The said application was however dismissed by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal vide its order dated 03.10.2012.
7. In the circumstances, the Respondent on 10.05.2012 sent a
notice under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 to the
Appellant demanding a sum of 13,09,32,188.73. The Appellant on
`
29.05.2012 replied to the notice dated 10.05.2012 seeking more time
from the Respondent to clear the outstanding and expressing its
willingness to make payment of the balance agreed amount in terms
of the compromise decree dated 15.12.2011, if the Respondent
extends the time till March, 2015 and waives off the future interest.
The relevant extract of the reply to the notice dated 10.05.2012 reads
as under:-
+ CO.APP. 21/2014 and CM No.6667/2014
M/S. CREW B.O.S. PRODUCTS LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee,
Advocate.
versus
DBS BANK ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2014
passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition
No.52/2013 whereby the said Company Petition was admitted to
hearing and a direction was issued for publication of the
advertisement of the said petition in the ‘Statesman’ (English Edition)
and ‘Jansatta’ (Hindi Edition) for 14.07.2014. It was, however,
directed that the said order shall not be given effect to for a period of
two weeks from the date thereof in order to enable the Appellant to
clear the outstanding dues or arrive at an amicable settlement.
CO. APP. 21/2014 Page 1 of 4
2. We note at the outset that notice of the petition was directed to
be issued to the Respondent by an order dated 30.01.2013. The
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent appeared on
02.05.2013 and sought time to file a reply to the petition. Six weeks
time was granted to file a reply, but no reply was filed within the
aforesaid period of time. On 27.08.2013, the Respondent was granted
another two weeks time to file a reply as a last opportunity. Yet the
Respondent again failed and neglected to file a reply to the petition.
On 06.11.2013, once again two weeks time was granted to the
Respondent to file a reply. Despite this, the Respondent did not file its
reply. In the circumstances, the right to file reply was closed by the
learned Company Judge on 14.03.2014 resulting in the passing of the
impugned order. The averments made in the petition are thus
uncontroverted.
3. We further note that there is no dispute between the parties that
an original application being O.A. No.302/2011, before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal-II under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due
to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) for
recovery of 13,52,63,763.66 together with costs, pendente lite and
`
future interest etc. culminated in a settlement between the parties.
4. It is also not in dispute that as per the said settlement the
Appellant was to pay ` 13,69,92,609/- alongwith interest in three
st
instalments and the final instalment was to be paid on or before 31
December, 2011 in the sum of ` 7,80,63,208.00. The said consent
order was passed pursuant to a joint application filed by the parties
herein.
CO. APP. 21/2014 Page 2 of 4
5. The Appellant paid the first instalment of ` 1,01,49,041.00 to
the Respondent and also paid a sum of ` 65,00,000.00 towards part
payment of the second instalment. The Appellant, however, could not
pay part of the second instalment and the third instalment, and thus
failed to comply with the settlement.
6. On 09.05.2012, the Appellant moved an application under
Section 19(25) of the Act, before the DRT-II, for modification of the
compromise decree dated 15.12.2011, explaining that the sum could
not be paid owing to the rejection of the loan application of the
Appellant. The said application was however dismissed by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal vide its order dated 03.10.2012.
7. In the circumstances, the Respondent on 10.05.2012 sent a
notice under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 to the
Appellant demanding a sum of 13,09,32,188.73. The Appellant on
`
29.05.2012 replied to the notice dated 10.05.2012 seeking more time
from the Respondent to clear the outstanding and expressing its
willingness to make payment of the balance agreed amount in terms
of the compromise decree dated 15.12.2011, if the Respondent
extends the time till March, 2015 and waives off the future interest.
The relevant extract of the reply to the notice dated 10.05.2012 reads
as under:-
| “In reply to Para 13 of the legal notice it is submitted | |
| that our client is still ready to make payment of the | |
| balance agreed amount in terms of compromise dated | |
| 15.11.2011, if the applicant bank extends the time till | |
| March, 2015 and waives off the future interest.” |
CO. APP. 21/2014 Page 3 of 4
8. It clearly emerges from the above that the Appellant is liable to
pay the balance amount in terms of the settlement arrived at between
the parties before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Presumably for this
reason, no reply to the petition was filed by the Appellant despite
ample opportunity being granted for the aforesaid purpose. The
averments made in the petition are thus unrebutted and unchallenged.
9. In view of the aforesaid, we see no infirmity in the impugned
order. The order admitting the petition and issuing citation, therefore,
calls for no interference.
10. Resultantly, the appeal and CM No.6667/2014 stand dismissed.
REVA KHETRAPAL
JUDGE
PRATIBHA RANI
JUDGE
April 21, 2014
km
CO. APP. 21/2014 Page 4 of 4