Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S Sewa Nand Ravinder Kumar And Company ... vs Union Bank Of India on 17 December, 2021

Author: Vipin Sanghi

Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh

                          $~20
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(C) 14555/2021 & CM APPL. 45840/2021, 45841/2021
                                 M/S SEWA NAND RAVINDER KUMAR AND
                                 COMPANY & ANR.                            ..... Petitioners
                                              Through: Ms. Svetlana Khiyungdzuzu, Adv.

                                                   versus

                                 UNION BANK OF INDIA                               ..... Respondent
                                              Through:         Mr. Rupak Srivastava, Adv.

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
                                              ORDER

% 17.12.2021

1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in Case No. TSA/24/2021 titled M/s Sewa Nand Ravinder Kumar & Company & Anr. vs. Union Bank of India.

2. By the impugned order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declined the petitioners' application for grant of six months time to the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount. The petitioner claimed that it had the intention to deposit the overdue amount by selling the mortgaged property, if the respondent-bank issues the No-Objections Certificate to it. The respondent-bank opposed the prayer made and also pointed out that, in fact, there were two loan accounts and not one, in respect of M/s. Sewa Nand Ravinder Kumar & Company alone. The other account, counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, informs us, is that of M/s.

Rashmi Impex and the properties in question are mortgaged in both the loan accounts and the outstanding dues in both the loan accounts is about Rs. 12 crores. The respondent-bank had declined the request of the petitioner to grant No-Objection to the petitioner to sell the property and, in our view, rightly so, since there are outstanding dues owed to the respondent-bank, the petitioner could not have insisted to sell the property on its own by grant of NOC. The petitioner has no vested right to seek extension of time from the Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

3. The writ petition along with pending applications, if any, is dismissed.

VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J DECEMBER 17, 2021 sr Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:21.12.2021 12:07:20