The result was that the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal revived and according to the Petitioner, despite such order of stay passed by this Court, the alleged companytemnors companytinued with the auction process in violation of the order of stay passed by this Court.
The said claim was refuted by the Petitioner Company on 17th September, 2009, denying the right of IFCI Ltd. to the sum as demanded.
Since a winding up order had been passed in respect of the petitioner companypany on the recommendation of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction BIFR and the Official Liquidator had been appointed, it was also directed that the Official Liquidator would be associated with the process of auction and the amount received by the Petitioner from prospective purchasers, as earnest money under the bids, would be kept in a No Lien Account.
This was followed by a further Deed of Assignment between ACE and the Respondent Company for a sum of Rs.18.63 crores.
In fact, a Deed of Assignment was executed between the Punjab National Bank and ACE on 15th July, 2008, for a sum of Rs.15,01,28,752.00.
On 5th May, 2008, the Petitioner Company entered into an agreement with Assets Care Enterprises Ltd., hereinafter referred to as ACE, a third party financier, whereby on payment of the balance amount of the One Time Settlement by ACE to the Punjab National Bank, the dues of the Bank stood companypletely settled and there was numberexisting liability of the Petitioner Company as far as the Bank was companycerned.
On being asked as to whether the order passed on 8th October, 2010 had been companymunicated to the alleged companytemnors or number, Mr. Andhyarujina submitted that since the order had been passed in the presence of learned companynsel for the Respondent Company, it had to be presumed that the same had been companyveyed to the Respondent Company by their learned companynsel.
Mr. Andhyarujina pointed out that such an ex parte order was passed on the supposition that there were dues to the extent of Rs.1,100.00 crores payable by the Respondent and that proceedings had also been taken under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 SARFAESI Act, 2002 even though the BIFR had recommended the winding up of the Petitioner Company and finalization of those proceedings was still pending before the Company Court where the Official Liquidator had been put in charge of the functioning of the Petitioner Company.
It was stated that the Memorandum of Understanding between the Petitioner Company and ACE would indicate that ACE was only entitled to a sum of Rs.15,01,28,752.00 and numberhing more.
In terms of the public numberice issued, it was intimated for the information of the public that the sealed bids would be opened on 15th October, 2010.
A default clause was, however, included in the Memorandum of Understanding that in case of default of the Petitioner to repay ACE, the latter would be at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner in terms of the financing documents assigned to it by the Petitioner.
Subsequent thereto, on 10th October, 2009, IFCI Ltd. took symbolic possession of the property of the Petitioner Company situated at Gannore in the State of Haryana.
Aggrieved by such direction, the Respondent had moved Writ Petition Civil No.6652 of 2010, in which an interim order was passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 29th September, 2010, directing that during the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petitioner would be free to proceed in pursuance of the Public Notice dated 13th September, 2010, but the bid was number to be finalized.
It is against the order subsequently granting time to the Petitioner Company to file a reply and adjourning the case to 27th September, 2010, which would be beyond the date of opening the bids, that IFCI Limited moved Writ Petition No.6652 of 2010 before the Delhi High Court, which passed the impugned order on 29th September, 2010, allowing IFCI Limited to proceed with the Public Notice dated 13th September, 2010, but with the direction that the bids were number to be finalised and that the Official Liquidator was to be associated with the bidding process.
The Special Leave Petition filed by M s Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. is taken up for companysideration on its merits.
The Respondent was also directed number to implement the possession numberice as well as the public numberice published on 13th September, 2010, till the next date of hearing.
On 23rd February, 2010, the BIFR recommended winding up of the Company and forwarded its recommendation to the High Court.
The Petitioner Company was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.35 crores within 30 days of the order.
Thereafter, on 13th September, 2010, IFCI Ltd. issued possession numberice with regard to the residential property, being Plot No.17, Friends Colony Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., New Delhi, and on the same date a public numberice was also issued inviting bids for the factory at Gannore in Haryana.
However, on 9th February, 2005, the High Court stayed the winding up order passed on 14th August, 2003, and directed the Official Liquidator to companytinue as the Liquidator and to also observe the functioning of the unit.
The Petitioner Company also filed a suit, being CS OS No.1886 of 2009, to injunct IFCI Ltd. from proceeding in accordance with the numberice dated 10th August, 2009, which was, however, dismissed by the High Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on 10th September, 2010.
Three years thereafter, the Punjab National Bank filed O.A. No.12 of 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, for recovery of a loan of Rs.3,27,62,27,044.00.
On 14th August, 2003, the High Court passed an order winding up the Company and appointing the Official Liquidator to implement the order of winding up.
Thereafter, on 10th August, 2009, IFCI Ltd. issued a numberice of demand to the Petitioner Company under Section 13 2 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for a sum of Rs.1139.75 crores.
Since the time granted by the Appellate Tribunal was beyond the date for opening of the bids, IFCI Ltd. filed Writ Petition No.6652 of 2010 before the Delhi High Court against the orders dated 10th September, 2010 and 15th September, 2010 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Delhi, and order dated 27th September, 2010, passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
On account of the default companymitted by the Petitioner Company in respect of the One Time Settlement entered into on 2nd September, 2004, the Punjab National Bank revoked the said settlement on 14th June, 2007.
Directions were given for filing affidavits and the case was adjourned by the Appellate Tribunal to 27th October, 2010.
Appeal Nos.352 and 353 of 2010, and on 22nd September, 2010, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal issued numberice and stayed the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Delhi, in the Original Application as also in the Securitization Appeal.
Thereafter, certain further developments took place, which ultimately brought the present Respondent Company into the picture.
Against the said order, IFCI Ltd. filed Misc.
Appeal No.352 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which stayed the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by its order dated 22nd September, 2010.
On the same date, an application was filed by the Petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Delhi, under Section 17 of the Debts Recovery Act, 1993, which passed an ex parte stay order in favour of the Petitioner in the said appeal.
The IFCI Ltd. filed two appeals against the said order dated 15th September, 2010, being Misc.
On 15th September, 2010, the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Delhi, passed an order of stay in favour of the Petitioner Company restraining IFCI Ltd. from taking steps in accordance with the possession numberice as well as the public numberice for sale.
At this stage, on 2nd September, 2004, the Punjab National Bank entered into a One Time Settlement with the Petitioner Company for a sum of Rs.26.16 crores out of which the Petitioner was able to pay a sum of Rs.13.80 crores and was unable to pay the rest.
The Petitioner Company, being aggrieved by the said interim order of the Division Bench of the High Court, moved the instant Special Leave Petition and on 8th October, 2010, while issuing numberice and giving directions for filing of affidavits, this Court stayed the operation of the order of the High Court which has been impugned in the Special Leave Petition.
