MS BINDAL MINERALS AND METALS PVT LTD vs CANARA BANK on 11 October 2024

1. 1. M/s Bindal Minerals & Metals Pvt. Ltd. Address E-36, Growth Centre Reeco II Odaila Road, Dholpur, Rajasthan- 328001 through its one of Director Arvind Kumar Dixit S/o Shri Purshottam Das Dixit.

2. 2. Arvind Kumar Dixit S/o Shri Purshottam Das Dixit, R/o A-7, Sangam Vihar, Kheria Mod. Agra-282001.

--M. Applicants

Versus

1. 1. Canara Bank, Kamla Nagar by Pass Road, Agra U.P., through its Chief Manager.

2. 2. Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Kamla Nagar by Pass Road, Agra.

3. 3. Rakesh Kumar Goyal S/o Bishmbhar Prasad Goyal

4. 4. Smt. Mithlesh Goyal W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Goyal Defendant No. 3 and 4, R/o 60/310, A/3, Khiriya Mod, Jaquar Road, District - Agra.

5. 5. Shri Sumit Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Nath Gupta R/o C19 Kamla Nagar Agra, U.P.

6. 6. Shri Vatsalya Agarwal S/o Brijesh Kumar Agarwal R/o J 13, Eminent Square Hanuman Mandir, Khandari, Agra, U.P.

--Respondents

Present:

<table style="width: 100%; border: none;"> <tr> <td style="width: 50%;"><b>For the Applicants</b></td> <td style="width: 50%;">: Shri K. Kartikeya, Advocate</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>For the respondent bank</b></td> <td>: None</td> </tr> </table>

**Dated: 11.10.2024**

**ORDERS**

1. 1. The Defendants/CDs (M. Applicants) have filed this M.A. under section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recalling the judgment dated 29.06.2024 and order dated 30.05.2024 passed in S.A. No. 425 of 2022.

2. 2. Ld counsel for M. Applicants submitted that M.A. may be heard on merit.

3. 3. On the request of Ld. Counsel for M. Applicants, the matter is heard on the recall application.

4. 4. Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicants submitted that free copy of the S.A. no. 425/2022 has been prepared on 03.07.2024 by this Tribunal and the same was served to the S. Applicants on 04.08.2024. It is further submitted that this M.A. has been filed by the M. Applicants on 05.08.2024 through online mode.

5. 5. It is further submitted that the matter was heard on 30.05

Tribunal, as this Tribunal was busy in other matter. It is further submitted that this case was listed on 30.05.2024 but neither it was expedited by any Appellate Court. Thereafter this case has been reserved and judgment was pronounced on 29.6.2024. It is further submitted that Shri Arvind Kumar Dixit is the Director of M/s Bindal Minerals & Metals Pvt Ltd but on oral submission of respondent no. 3 & 4 that Sh. Arvind Kumar Dixit has left the company in the year 2018 and the respondent no. 3 and 4 are the actual owner of the company and they are represented the company M/s Bindal Mineral & Metal Pvt Ltd. It is a fact that respondent no. 3 & 4 are also director of M/s Bindal Mineral and Metal Pvt Ltd. It is further submitted that on the pretext of the respondent bank and respondent no. 3 & 4 and auction purchaser this Tribunal has decided the matter . Respondent no. 3 & 4 has wrongly persuaded this Tribunal showing them as director and accordingly, this Tribunal has decided the S.A. the respondent no. 3 & 4 have not objected for selling the property. Request is made that order dated 29.06.2024 & 30.05.2024 may be recalled in view of arguments mentioned above.

6. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicants and summon the original file of the main case. Perused the original file of the case.

7. On perusal of record, it appears that the present M.A. has been filed by the M. Applicants under section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recalling the judgment dated 29.06.2024 and order dated 30.05.2024, passed in S.A. No. 425 of 2022.

8. The sole grievance of the M. Applicants in this M. A. is that Shri Arvind Kumar Dixit is the Director of M/s Bindal Minerals & Metals Pvt. Ltd. and this Tribunal vide judgment/order dated 29.06.2024 has dismissed the S.A. No. 425 of 2024 as infructuous on the oral submission of respondent no. 3 & 4 that Sh. Arvind Kumar Dixit has left the company in the year 2018 and the respondent no. 3 and 4 are the actual owner of the company and the company M/s Bindal Mineral & Metal Pvt Ltd. is represented by them only.

9. As per Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicant the free copy of the judgment/order dated 29.06.2024, passed by this Tribunal in S.A no. 425/2022 has been prepared on 03.07.2024 and the same was served to the S. Applicants on 04.08.2024 and this M.A. has been filed by the M. Applicants on 05.08.2024 through online mode which is within time.

10. On perusal of the record, it further appears that the present M. Applicants (S. Applicants in S.A. No. 425 of 2022) had filed SA No. 425 of 2022, challenging the auction sale notice published in the newspapers on 03.12.2021 as well as the auction proceedings dated 27.12.2021. Further, the SA No. 425 of 2022 was listed on 29.06.2024 for final arguments but on 29.06.2024, no one was present on behalf of the S. Applicants and accordingly, after hearing the Ld. Counsels for the respondents/borrowers, respondent Bank as well as the auction purchaser, this Tribunal vide judgment/ order dated 29.06.2024, dismissed the S. Application No. 425 of 2022 as infructuous since the entire outstanding dues had been recovered and there remained nothing for adjudication.

11. The record available in this case further goes to show that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 of the SA are the owner/director of the firm namely M/s Bindal Minerals and Metal Pvt. Ltd.- M. Applicant No. 1 and the M. Applicant No. 2-Arvind Dixit was one of the Directors of the S. Applicant No. 1/M. Applicant No. 1-firm who had left the firm in the year 2018.

12. The perusal of record further reveals that the respondent Bank had sold the Factory premises along with machinery etc. on 27.12.2021 for a sum of Rs. 1,28,17,000/- against the total outstanding of Rs. 87,50,349.24 and entire outstanding dues has been recovered and some excess money is to be refunded from the bank to the borrowers/guarantors.

13. On perusal of record, it appears that the sufficient time had already been given to the S. Applicants (M. Applicants in the present M. A.) to argue the matter but as their Counsel failed to appear and advance arguments on their behalf, therefore, this Tribunal heard the matter finally on 30.05.2024 and dismissed the SA No. 425 of 2024 as infructuous vide judgment/order dated 29.06.2024.

14. In view of above, since the M. Applicants are failed to establish that the observations made by this Tribunal while dismissing the SA No. 425 of 2022 as infructuous on 29.06.2024 are incorrect or otherwise and the M. Applicants are also failed to point out any illegality/irregularity in the judgment/order dated 29.06.2024 passed by this Tribunal, therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered view that there is no merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the M. Applicants and no sufficient cause for recalling the judgment dated 29.06.2024 and order dated 30.05.2024 passed in S.A. No. 425 of 2022, has been given on behalf of the M. Applicants, hence, the present M. Application is liable to be dismissed.

15. The Misc. Application filed by the M. applicants is devoid of any merits and hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.

16. A copy of this order be given to the parties, as per Rules.

17. The pending I.As./Interim order, if any, stands dismissed/vacated, accordingly.

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 11^th Day of October, 2024.

Dictated & Corrected by me

[R. M. Kushawaha] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad

[R. M. Kushawaha] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad

VK