The companytroversy involved in the appeal centers around the short facts and is essentially a legal one.
The Division Bench was also of the view that the writ petition filed by the appellant was rightly number entertained by the Single Judge writ Court on the ground that the proper remedy of the appellant was to file an application before the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to question the action of forfeiture made by PNB and number in filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
This writ petition was disposed of finally on 29.05.2015 observing therein that since the appellant had failed to companyply with the term of memorandum of understanding inasmuch as the appellant having failed to deposit the requisite installment of sale money, the PNB cannot proceed with the auction sale held on 17.06.2014 and number can the appellant be permitted to remove the scrap material lying in the factory premises.
This led to another dispute between the parties which was filed in the DRT and then before the appellate authority DRAT and finally, in the High Court at Allahabad in Writ Petition c No.
The appellant herein was one of the bidders, whose bid was declared the highest.
The appellants bid was accordingly accepted by the PNB followed by execution of memorandum of understanding between the appellant and the PNB Annexure P 4 .
Heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. M.T. George, learned companynsel for the respondents.
The Single Judge, therefore, declined to go into the merits of the case.
The appellant objected to the action of PNB by letters and then filed the writ petition in the High Court of Delhi challenging therein the action of PNB in forfeiting the appellants deposit of money.
The appellant then wrote a letter to PNB requesting them to refund their money with interest.
By impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the order of the Single Judge.
and the particular legislation companytains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.
The appellant, felt aggrieved of the order of the Single Judge, filed intra Court appeal LPA 699 of 2015 before the Division Bench.
This gave rise to the disputes between the parties, namely, PNB, appellant auction purchaser and the Borrower before the Debt Recovery Tribunal DRT , Lucknow being S.A. No 310 of 2014 wherein an order was passed on 03.07.2014 Annexure P 11 directing the appellant number to remove any material from the factory premises.
22246/2015 by the Borrower.
Respondents Punjab National Bank hereinafter referred to as PNB is a Nationalised Bank.
This led the PNB to forfeit the appellants deposit by their letter dated 26.06.2015 Annexure P25 .
The Borrower, however, failed to clear their loan amount and became a defaulter in its repayment.
The PNB also sent a letter to the appellant stating that the entire plant, machinery, land and the building is auctioned in favour of the appellant.
The appellant, however, failed to pay the regular installments towards sale money in terms of memorandum of understanding to PNB and sought extension of time to pay and remove the scrap material from the site.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
Felt aggrieved, the auction purchaser has filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No.699 of 2015 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein for quashing the order dated 01.09.2015 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2017.11.27 161236 IST Reason passed by the Single Judge, which dismissed the appellants W.P. c No.8314 of 2015.
The Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 01.09.2015, dismissed the appellants writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy to the appellant of filing the application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT to challenge the action of PNB in forfeiting the deposit money of the appellant.
The letter also authorized the appellant to dismantle and sell the scrap plant and the machinery which was lying at the Borrowers factorys premises after depositing the necessary installment of sale amount, as agreed upon between the parties in the memorandum of understanding.
The PNB had given loan facility to a Company called M s India Iron Steel Corporation Limited in short, Borrower for their business, which they were carrying at a place called Noorpur Khirki, Village Farid Nagar, Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor P. To secure the loan amount, the Borrower had secured their assets, which companysisted of the land, factory building, plant and machinery situated at Dhampur.
However, few relevant facts need mention, in brief, to appreciate the companytroversy.
