STATE BANK OF INDIA vs KUNDIL ALLOYS PVT LTD on 24 December 2019

JUDGMENT

1. On 3rd December, 2012 the applicants presented the Original Application for recovery of their dues in the sum of Rs.15,63,39,060.10 and enforcement of the securities. It was registered as OA (L) No.1114/2012.

2. The applicants took more than 142 days to remove the office objections out of total 180 days being the timeline for disposal of the Original Application.

3. No efforts were made by the applicants for a period of 06 days for issuance of the summons. Between the period from 11th July, 2013 to 5th August, 2013 no affidavit proving service of summons was filed. On 23rd August, 2013 affidavit i.e. Exhibit-7 proving service of summons was filed.

4. On 17th September, 2013 Advocate Preeti Dambare appeared for defendant nos.1 to 7 and sought adjournment to file vakalatnama and written statement.

[Kaur]

5. On 26th September, 2013 Advocate U.S. Sheetty appeared for the applicants and no representation was made by defendant nos.1 to 7. It appears that the applicants did not press for placing the matter for appropriate orders and allowed the stage of written statement to be continued.

6. On 4th October, 2013 Advocate Preeti Dambre appeared and filed vakalatnama for defendant nos.1, 5 and 7. Direction was issued to file Resolution of defendant no.1 and copy of Power of Attorney given by defendant nos.5 and 7.

7. On 8th October, 2013 copy of Board Resolution was filed and therefore, it was adjourned for filing written statement.

8. On 27th November, 2013 applicants’ Advocate made representation. However, no representation was made on behalf of defendant nos.1 and 7. The applicants did not think it fit for pressing to pass appropriate order as defendant nos.1 to 7 neither choose to make any representation nor filed written statement.

9. On 18th December, 2013 defendant nos.1 to 7 was granted last chance to file the written statement.

[Kaur]

10. On 23rd December, 2013 since no written statement was filed by defendant nos.1 to 7, the applicants pressed the matter to be placed before the Hon’ble Presiding Officer for appropriate orders.

11. On 24th February, 2014 defendants filed application i.e. Exhibit-10 seeking dismissal of the Original Application.

12. On 6th May, 2014 the applicants sought adjournment to file reply to Exhibit-10.

13. On 31st July, 2014 despite absence of defendant nos.1 to 7, the applicants did nothing.

14. On 30th September, 2014 the applicants did not choose to file reply to Exhibit-10.

15. On 28th January, 2015 the applicants filed application i.e. Exhibit-11 alongwith affidavit in support Exhibit-12. The matter was therefore, adjourned for hearing of Exhibit-10 and 11.

16. Between the period from 13th March, 2015 to 10th November, 2015 the matter was adjourned for hearing applications i.e. Exhibit-10 and 11, respectively. On that day i.e. 10th

[Kaur]

November, 2015 the applicants moved another application i.e. Exhibit-13.

17. Pursuant to the notification issued by the Competent Authority vide Notification No.F.No.18/2/2016-DRT/[SO 3065[E] date 26th September, 2016 the matter was transferred to DRT-1, Mumbai.

18. On 21st December, 2016 I find reference to IA nos.1704/2016 and reply to IA no.161/2015 and 1924/2015. It appears that the IA was registered as well as it has been exhibited.

19. On 16th February, 2017 the matter was adjourned for filing CAOD of the applicants.

20. On 6th April, 2017 the matter was once again adjourned by extending the time to file CAOD till 6th July, 2017. On that day i.e. 6th July, 2017 the applicants failed and neglected to file CAOD and once again requested time to file CAOD. The order-sheet is recorded stating that “Time is extended as last chance till 18th October, 2017 failing which the O.A. will be dismissed for non prosecution.”

21. Admittedly, from 18th October, 2017 till date the applicants

[Kaur]

have failed and neglected to file evidence affidavit and original documents. The applicants are taking advantage of the pendent lite and future interest in the case where the Original Application is pending since 3rd December, 2012. Whether the applicants should be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong where sub-section (24) of Section 19 of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (for short `the 1993 Act’) provides the timeline of 180 days for disposal of the Original Application.

22. As aforesaid, the Original Application was presented on 3rd December, 2012. Even after more than 07 years, the applicants are not in a position to file the CAOD. The reason given by Mr. Rizvi is that the amendment applications were taken out and therefore, the applicants will file the evidence affidavit thereafter. However, Mr. Rizvi could not answer why Original Application should not be dismissed as per order dated 6th July, 2017.

23. Defendants have taken objection of pendent lite and future interest at the rate specified in the prayers and

[Kaur]

simultaneously proceeding with the SARFAESI action and measures without proceeding for the adjudication of the claim.

24. Based on the order dated 6th July,2017, the Original Application of the applicants is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

25. In view of the above, I pass the following order:

ORDER

Original Application No.852/2016 is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs.

Sd/- (Deepak M Thakkar) I/c Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Mumbai