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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more