Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Ms PRATYUSHA RESOURCES AND INFRA P LTD vs INDIAN BANK on 16 May 2019
1
M.A. No. 38 of 2019 in SA No. 91 of 2017
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present :- SHRI DUPPALA VASUDEVA RAO,
PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated the 16<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2019
M.A. No. 38 of 2019
In
S.A. No. 91 of 2017
Between :
- 1. M/s. Pratyusha Resources & Infra (P) Ltd., rep by its Director Mr. PP Rao, 25-40-12, Gangulavari Street, Visakhapatnam.
- 2. P.Prabhakara Rao, HIG-231, Sector-4, MVP Colony Visakhapatnam.
- 3. G. Srinivasa Rao, G-231, Sector-4, MVP Colony Visakhapatnam.
- 4. N. Amulya, Flat No.2, Triveni Towers, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.
- 5. P. Raja Rao, D-1, Guindy, Chennai.
- 6. PV Bhaskara Rao, HIG-231, Sector-4, MVP Colony Visakhapatnam.
- 7. KB Subramanyam, Plot No.20, Sector-5, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam.
- 8. M/s, Pratyusha Globa Trader (P) Ltd, 25-40-12, Gangulavari Street, Visakhapatnam.
- 9. M/s. Pratyusha Estates (P) Ltd., 25-40-12, Gangulavari Street, Visakhapatnam.
..... Petitioners
And
- 1. Indian Bank, rep. by its Authorised Officer, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam.
..... Respondent
Ld Counsel for Petitioners : Sri CVSL Raju Ld Counsel for Respondent Bank : Sri SS Sharma
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This petition is filed by the Petitioners with a prayer to reopen the matter for granting of time for payment of 6<sup>th</sup> Installment for further proceedings in the interest of justice.
2. According to the case of petitioners, petitioner Mr.PV Prabhakar Rao is the Director of 1<sup>st</sup> applicant herein and filed this petition challenging the possession notice published by the respondent herein and further submitted that the main SA was filed challenging the measures initiated by the respondent bank while the matter stood for arguments, petitioners submitted that they had made proposal for settlement under OTS and accordingly respondent bank accepted OTS proposal and granted time till September, 2019 for payment of the OTS amount as such the above SA was closed and as per OTS sanction, petitioners paid five installments and could not pay the sixth installment which was due by 31.03.2019 which was not intentional but respondent bank straight away issued letter against the principles of natural justice as such petitioners filed the present petition for extension of time and as the matter was closed, it is necessary to reopen the above matter and therefore prayed to reopen the matter for granting the time for payment of Six Installments for further proceedings in the interest of justice.
3. Counter has been filed by the respondent bank denying the petition averments and further submitted that reopening of the matter does not arise since the purpose of giving OTS sanction is to recover the amount in a prescribed time and further submitted that petitioners failed to honour the Installment No.5 and paid and paid the Installment No.5 with a delay of 9 days and now on pretext of general election trying to avoid the repayment of OTS amount. The respondent bank submit that as per the OTS, borrower company has comply all terms and conditions and in case of failure to comply with the any of the conditions, OTS sanction will automatically get cancelled and remittances, if any made by the parties including the upfront amount under the OTS sanction, will stand appropriated towards the total dues as if there is no One Time Settlement and the Bank will proceed with all available legal course to recover its entire dues. Hence as the borrower company failed to comply the terms and condition, the BM in her letter dt: 30.03.2019 conveyed the same to the borrower company and further submitted that the present petition is devoid of merits and as on the date of filing this petition there is no matter pending on the file of the Tribunal as such seeking extension of time through this Tribunal is not correct.
4. The point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for reopening the matter for granting of time for payment of Six Installment for further proceedings in the interest of justice as prayed for or not.
5. Heard both sides. Ld Counsel for petitioners argued that petitioners filed the present petition for reopen the SA 91/2017 as OTS proposal submitted by petitioners was granted by respondent bank and petitioners filed MA 39/2019 with a prayer to grant 60 days time for payment of the 6<sup>th</sup> installment. Ld Counsel for petitioners prayed to reopen the matter i.e. SA 91/2017 as OTS proposal was granted by respondent bank. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for respondent bank argued that SA 91/2017 cannot be reopened.
6. Admittedly, respondent bank sanctioned OTS proposal and granted time to pay installments till end of September, 2019. Petitioners paid upto 5<sup>th</sup> installment and petitioners failed to pay the 6<sup>th</sup> installment which was due by 31.03.2019 and the same was not intentional. Therefore, MA 39/2019 was filed for grant of extension of time for 60 days. No doubt, respondent bank opposed for reopening of the matter i.e. SA 91/2017 but in the interest of justice and as per principles of natural justice, it is just and necessary to reopen the matter i.e. SA 91/2017 and hence this petition MA 38/2019 deserves to be allowed.
In the result, this petition MA 38/2019 in SA 91/2017 is allowed and SA 91/2017 is reopened for further hearing.
Each party to bear their cost.
Let the copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rules.
[Dictated to PS, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 16<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2019]
16/5/19 PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM