STATE BANK OF INDIA vs M/s Vishal Global Pvt. Ltd. on 22 February 2019

1. This MA has been filed by defendant No.3 praying therein to recall the order dated 07.02.2013 passed in MA No.52/2011; dismiss the MA No.52/2011 with exemplary and special costs and initiate proceedings against Standard Chartered Bank and its Authorized Officer – Mr. Nitil B. Kamble by making an appropriate reference to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 so that the contemnors may be brought to justice.

2. It is stated in the MA that the Standard Chartered Bank, in terms of liberty granted to it vide order dated 18.04.2011 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.21/2008 titled as Neelima Bagaria Vs. Standard Chartered Bank, preferred MA No.52/2011 seeking its substitution as Certificate Holder in place of State Bank of India on the premise that vide assignment deed dated 29.03.2006, the debt of the defendant No.1 allegedly stands assigned in its favour and the aforesaid MA was allowed vide order dated 07.02.2013. It is stated that the Standard Chartered Bank is guilty of suppression of following facts which it ought to have disclosed before this Tribunal while moving and pursuing MA No.52/2011 that the Standard Charted Bank entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 29.09.2008 with

Metro Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. for assignment of NPA of the defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.18 crores and Metro Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. paid to Standard Chartered Bank a sum of Rs.5 crores. It is stated that since Metro Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. allegedly defaulted in making further payments towards the consideration for the assignment of NPA, the Standard Chartered Bank forfeited the amount of Rs.5 crores thereafter, Metro Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition OMP No.592/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking interim injunction and counsel for Standard Chartered Bank made a statement before Hon’ble High Court that Standard Chartered Bank would maintain status quo as regards alienation/parting with possession of the property in question. The said petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 13.01.2012 with the observation that Standard Chartered Bank would be at liberty to file an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in respect of the status quo order thereafter, Standard Chartered Bank filed application before the Ld. Arbitrator seeking vacation of status quo order dated 14.12.2009 and the Ld. Arbitrator, vide order dated 16.03.2012 vacated the status quo order and held that the Standard Chartered Bank would be at liberty to sell the property in question subject to deposit of Rs.5 crores with the Registrar of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi within four weeks of the sale. It is stated that aggrieved by the said order, the appeal was filed by Metro Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi being FAO No.159/2012 which was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 20.04.2012. It is stated that the Standard Charted Bank realized a sum of Rs.5 crores in the loan account of Vishal Global Ltd. on or about 29.09.2008. It is stated that the applicant bank has suppressed these material facts in MA No.52/2011.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank objected on the present MA.

4. I have heard rival submissions and perused the record. By way of this MA, the defendant No.2 seeks to recall the order dated 07.02.2013 passed in MA No.52/2011. The recall application is maintainable only in case of typographical error however, the defendant No.3 failed to raise any typographical error in the present matter and in recall application, matter could not be heard on merits.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Cine Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector, District Gwalior and others (2013) 2 SCC 698 has clearly held as under:- “7. We are of the view that the ratio laid down in the above-mentioned Judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case as well. Generally an application for correction of a typographical error or omission of a word etc. in a Judgment or order would lie, but a petition which is intended to review an order or Judgment under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in criminal proceedings except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record, could not be achieved by filing an application for clarification/modification/recall or rehearing, for which a properly constituted review is the remedy.”

6. In view of the above said judgment, this MA is hereby dismissed.

7. File be closed and consigned to record room. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per procedures. Dasti (Dr. REKHA G. DHAKAR) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI (Pronounced in open court) February 22, 2019