Skip to main content

Recovery of public money cannot wait indefinitely to suit the convenience of a particular borrower

In Brahm (Alloys) Ltd. & Anr.vs West Bengal Financial Corporation & Ors., three sale notices were issued against the assets of the Petitioner/Borrower. On each of the earlier occasions, the borrower had prayed for and been given time to repay but had failed. Against this latest notice, the borrower in its appeal submitted that the petitioners are already in touch with an Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) regarding the loan being taken over by the said ARC. Such action on the part of the petitioners was already communicated to the respondent no.1. However, the respondent no.1 is taking a plea that there had been previous nonfulfillment by the petitioners of the liberty granted to the petitioners to repay the loan and that there is no provision in the State Financial Corporation Act for transferring such loan to an ARC. The petitioners through the present application again sought some time to finalize the arrangements with the ARC for the purpose of repayment of the loan advanced by respondent No.1 and in any event, the petitioners may be given a chance to meet the highest price once the offers come in with regard to the latest auction sale. That will mitigate the grievance of the petitioners of not getting an opportunity before the assets are sold out.

The Respondent argued that against each previous sale notice, the Borrower had filed writ trying to stop the sale while pledging to repay the loan but has failed. Further, the offer given by the ARC, as annexed to the pleadings, was conditional, leaving scope for further negotiation. However, respondent no.1 does not want to prolong the recovery by sale, more so because public money is involved. A fresh process of negotiation was turned down by the respondent no.1 on such score. Hence, the ARC’s negotiations cannot form a relevant basis for staying the process of sale which has now been undertaken.

The High Court dismissed the writ observing that recovery of public money cannot wait indefinitely to suit the convenience of a particular borrower. In the present case, even the latest offer given by the concerned ARC, with whom the petitioners are negotiating, is patently conditional. As such, there is no final proposal, even at this stage, coming from the ARC at the behest of the petitioners for repayment of the loan. In such circumstances, the respondent no.1 was fully justified in proceeding with the sale of the assets of the borrower, particularly in view of the previous conduct of the petitioners. A fresh lease of life cannot now be granted to the petitioners, since such opportunity was previously given to them but the petitioners miserably failed to avail of the same. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more