ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDIA LTD vs KUNDIL ROLLING MILLS PVT LTD on 24 December 2019

JUDGMENT

1. The Original Application was presented on 26th February, 2013 for the recovery in the sum of Rs.15,87,31,252.31 and for enforcement of the securities.

2. The reading of the order sheet reveals that on 8th July, 2013 it was adjourned for compliance. The order sheet further reveals that no steps were taken by the applicants to remove the objection for the period from 22nd July, 2013 to 1st November, 2013.

3. Thereafter, on 21st November, 2013 summons was issued for service upon defendant nos.1 to 8. On 26th December, 2013 and 15th January, 2014 the matter was adjourned for filing of the affidavit proving service upon defendant nos.1 to 8.

4. On 12th February, 2014 Ms. Preeti Dambare, Advocate appeared for defendant nos.1 to 8. The matter was adjourned for filing service affidavit, vakalatnama and written statement.

[npb]

5. On 13th March, 2014 defendant nos.1 to 8 were granted last chance to file written statement and vakalatnama.

6. On 19th March, 2014 the Advocate for the applicant submitted that the service upon defendant nos.1 to 8 is complete and therefore, the matter was placed before the Hon’ble Presiding Officer for appropriate orders.

7. On 6th May, 2014 the applicants were directed to file the CAOD. Between the period from 1st August, 2014 to 28th April, 2016 the applicants did not choose to file the CAOD.

8. On 26th September, 2016 the competent authority issued the notification for transfer of the present suit from Debts Recovery Tribunal-3, Mumbai to Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Mumbai.

9. On 22nd December, 2016 the order sheet reveals that the applicants did not file the CAOD. Therefore, the counsel sought time to file the CAOD which was extended till 28th February, 2017.

10. On 28th February, 2017 also the applicants did not file the CAOD and sought adjournment to file the same. On that day, assignee i.e. ARCIL filed Interlocutory Application No.201/2017 for substituting it in place of the applicant

[npb]

No.1 i.e. State Bank of India. The matter was then posted to 11th April, 2017 for filing the CAOD. Since CAOD was not filed by the applicants even on 17th July, 2017, last chance was granted to the applicants to file the CAOD. The order sheet records “Time is extended as last chance till 26th October 2017 failing which the O.A. will be dismissed for non-prosecution”. The applicants have failed and neglected to file the evidence affidavit even after a period of 1603 days (upto 17th July, 2017) as against the timeline of 180 days provided under sub-section (24) of Section 19 for speedy and expeditious disposal of the Original Application. Even thereafter, another 885 days (upto 20th December, 2019) have lapsed. However, the applicants have failed and neglected to file the evidence affidavit. Mr. Nimbkar submitted that the claim affidavit is ready but it is in Bombay. On the last date also, Mr. Nimbkar had made the same submission that the claim affidavit is ready and it can be filed at Bombay.

11. Defendant nos.1, 2 and 6 had objected the applicants’ proceeding under The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

[npb]

2002 without the adjudication in the present case with regard to the pendent lite and future interest.

12. The applicants cannot take the advantage of its own wrong for its fault for not filing the evidence affidavit.

13. Based on the order dated 17th July, 2017 the Original Application filed by the applicants is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

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

ORDER

Original Application No.1239/2016 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

[npb]