TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterim order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in an appeal filed by the petitioner under section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 54 of 2002'), in which appeal challenge is to action initiated by PNB as per notice dated 11-1-2008 to proceed under section 13 of Act No. 54 of 2002. By and under the order dated 9-3-2010 the Debt Recovery Tribunal has prima facie recorded that the recovery of the dues by the two secured creditors before it i.e., PNB and HUDCO approximates about Rs. 70 crores and that even the petitioner was admitting liability approximating about Rs. 10 crores. It has thus been directed that the petitioner would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rores together with pendente lite interest as per the agreement between the parties. 5. Unfortunately, the two proceedings initiated in the year 1995 and 1997 respectively remained pending for over a decade, when in the year 2008, as noted herein above, PNB took resort to an action under section 13 of Act No. 54 of 2002. 6. In between, the petitioner company took recourse remedy under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985. On 14-11-2002 the petitioner was declared a Sick Industrial Company and PNB was appointed as an Operating Agency. 7. It is unfortunate that proceedings under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985, which commenced in the year 2001 have meandered aimlessly and till date we do not h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring the credits had apparently fallen in value. It made sense for the secured creditors to seek a one-time settlement, and which PNB did when on 1-8-2007 it accepted petitioner's one-time settlement proposal to receive Rs. 2.75 crores in full and final settlement of its dues, payable in instalments as per schedule set out in the letter of acceptance dated 1-8-2007. Suffice would it be to state the petitioner defaulted and did not even deposit the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs required to be deposited within 15 days of acceptance of the proposal; the first instalment as also the second in sum of Rs. 31.25 lakhs were not paid. 12. It can thus safely be said that by offering to settle the claim of PNB, the petitioner had accepted liability in sum of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by filing Original Applications before the Debt Recovery Tribunal well within three years of the facility being recalled and prima facie the question of the debts being time barred would not arise; nor would the enforceability of the right under section 13 of Act No. 54 of 2002. 16. It has to be noted that the issue pertaining to a secured asset being proceeded against by a secured creditor under Act No. 54 of 2002 during pendency of proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 was a subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in various appeals filed in the year 2006 against decisions of the Madras High Court pronounced in the year 2005 and the issue attained finality when the deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B was void. 21. We note that this issue has yet to be decided by the DRT, but would note that as per HUDCO, it had granted the necessary consent. 22. It is settled law that an appeal under section 17 of Act No. 54 of 2002 by a party aggrieved against a measure taken by a secured creditor under section 13(4) of the said Act, inheres in DRT power to pass interim directions and the Tribunal would be empowered to pass such orders as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to the recourse taken by the secured creditors under sub-section 4 of section 13 of the Act. This power of the Tribunal to pass interlocutory orders is no longer res integra and is well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court 2004 Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. ....