2010 (11) TMI 1136 - SC - Indian Laws

Contempt Petition Dismissed; SC Directs Tribunal on Legitimacy of Demand Under SARFAESI Act, Auction Stayed Pending Decision.

Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. Versus IFCI Ltd.

The SC dismissed the contempt petition due to insufficient evidence of willful violation of its stay order. It directed the DRAT to address issues ... - Issues Involved:1. Alleged contempt of court for violation of a stay order.2. Validity of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.3. Legitimacy of the demand made by IFCI Ltd. under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.4. The effect of assignment of rights and liabilities from ACE to IFCI Ltd.5. Interim order implications and pending proceedings before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Alleged Contempt of Court:The primary issue revolved around the alleged contempt of court by the Respondent for violating the Supreme Court's stay order dated 8-10-2010. The Petitioner claimed that despite the stay, the Respondent continued with the auction process of the Petitioner's property. However, the court found insufficient evidence to prove that the alleged contemnors had knowledge of the stay order. The court emphasized the necessity for the petitioner in a contempt case to establish that the contemnor had willfully and deliberately violated the court's order. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed due to lack of material proof.2. Validity of Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002:The Petitioner contended that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act should not continue until the actual dues were determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Petitioner argued that the demand made by IFCI Ltd. was based on an exaggerated figure and questioned the legitimacy of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The court, however, noted that the proceedings were still pending before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and refrained from making a definitive ruling on the validity of the proceedings, directing the Tribunal to consider all the questions raised.3. Legitimacy of the Demand by IFCI Ltd.:The Petitioner challenged the demand notice issued by IFCI Ltd. under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, arguing that the demand was absurd and not reflective of the actual liability. The court acknowledged that the determination of the actual amount payable was essential and that the sale proceeds could be kept in a separate account until the dues were quantified. The court directed the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to address this issue in the pending proceedings.4. Effect of Assignment of Rights and Liabilities:The case involved the assignment of rights from ACE to IFCI Ltd., which the Petitioner argued should not allow IFCI Ltd. to maintain proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The court recognized that under the SARFAESI Act, a reconstruction company like ACE could carry on the business of securitization and that IFCI Ltd., as an assignee, was entitled to pursue recovery. The court did not find merit in the Petitioner's argument that the assignment invalidated the demand under section 13(2).5. Interim Order Implications and Pending Proceedings:The Special Leave Petition was filed against an interim order of the High Court allowing IFCI Ltd. to proceed with the auction notice. The court noted that the issues raised in the Special Leave Petition were still under consideration by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The court refrained from expressing any view on the pending proceedings and directed the Tribunal to expedite the disposal of the appeals. The court also ordered that the auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act remain stayed until the Tribunal's decision.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petition due to lack of evidence and directed the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to address the substantive issues in the pending appeals, maintaining the stay on auction proceedings until a decision is reached.