Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Morion Chemicals Ltd. vs Uco Bank on 29 October, 2021
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
SLP(C) 16681/2021
1
ITEM NO.14 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.16681/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-10-2021
in CWP No.16885/2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh)
M/S MORION CHEMICALS LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UCO BANK & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for I.R. and IA No.136225/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 29-10-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Nakul Jain, Adv.
Ms. Hyyat Ahluwalia, Adv.
Ms. Divya Roy, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR
Mr. Rajeev Mehra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Bansal, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Tejas Patel, AOR
Digitally signed by
Chetan Kumar
Date: 2021.10.30
12:43:24 IST
Reason:
SLP(C) 16681/2021
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 Mr Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that:
(i) There was a clear breach of the mandatory requirement of the provisions of Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 read with the provisions of Rule 9(1) inasmuch as no notice of the auction was issued to the petitioner as borrower;
(ii) The High Court has accepted the position that there was a breach of the mandatory requirement, but has displaced the petition on the ground that there was an acquiescence on the part of the petitioner;
(iii) In paragraph 37 of the judgment, the High Court has noted that the securitization application was required to be filed within a period of 45 days from the date of auction/confirmation of sale (22 October 2007) which expired on 8 December 2007, the application was filed on 20 December 2007 with a delay of twelve days;
(iv) By an order dated 9 January 2014, the High Court had specifically framed two questions including whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 would be available in respect of an application filed under Section 17 or 18 of the SARFESI Act; and
(v) In SLP(C) No 4754 of 2021 (K J George and Another vs The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank and Others), notice has been issued by this Court on 26 March 2021 on the applicability of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2 Issue notice.
SLP(C) 16681/2021 3 3 Mr Rajeev Mehra, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of the auction purchaser and Mr Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent-bank.
4 Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks from today.
5 Tag with SLP(C) No 4754 of 2021.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master