P. Kanagasabhavathy v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited

Delhi High Court · 29 Aug 2014 · 2014:DHC:4262-DB
Sanjiv Khanna; R. S. Endlaw
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5536/2014
2014:DHC:4262-DB
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging refusal to condone a 733-day delay in filing an appeal against a debt recovery adjudication order, holding that mere irregularity in service does not justify condonation when the order was received.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P. (C) 5536/2014
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5536/2014
Date of Decision: 29th August, 2014 P. KANAGASABHAVATHY..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S. Mahendran, Advocate.
VERSUS
INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED (IREDA) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. ENDLAW SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
CM No. 13752/2014 Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5536/2014
The present writ petition by P. Kanagasabhavathy, impugns order dated 21st July, 2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (Appellate Tribunal, for short). By the said order, the Appellate
Tribunal has dismissed application seeking condonation of delay of 733 days, in filling of the appeal.
JUDGMENT

2. The respondent No.1 herein Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA, for short) had initiated recovery proceedings 2014:DHC:4262-DB under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 on 18th July, 2001, culminating in the adjudication order dated 9th December, 2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (DRT, for short). It was held that the petitioner herein, his wife Smt. L. Swaranlakshmi alongwith the company/principal borrower M/s South India Fuel Private Limited were liable to pay Rs.15,56,440/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 11% per annum with quarterly rests. Other directions were also issued.

3. The petitioner herein and others did not prefer any appeal against the said original order till 16th February, 2012. In the meantime, the Recovery Officer initiated action for auction of the property located in district Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu. The property was sold for Rs.55.10 lacs to the highest bidder, on 9th March, 2012. On or about 9th April, 2012, the petitioner approached the respondent bank with demand drafts of Rs.57 lacs and a proposal of settlement. Initially respondent no.1 IREDA returned the drafts observing that the proposed settlement was not in accordance with norms of IREDA. Then petitioner re-submitted the drafts amounting to Rs 57 lacs on 28.7.2012. Respondent IREDA, vide its letter dated 7.8.2012, accepted the fresh settlement proposal, but demanded a further amount of Rs 8.57 lacs. Petitioner, it is stated, made payment of Rs 8.57 lacs. Respondent No.1 IREDA has issued ‘no dues’ certificate dated 27th September, 2012, subject to further order or directions from competent court/tribunals where the subject matter was pending adjudication or in appeal. This shows that the controversy emanating from the Original Application between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 has come to an end and stands resolved.

4. It is pointed out to us that proceedings before the DRT on the question of sale by way of auction, objection thereto etc. are pending. The issue with regard to payment and the effect of issue of ‘no dues’ certificate in terms of letter dated 27th September, 2012, including rights of third party purchaser are subjudice before the said forum. In view of the aforesaid position, we are not examining the said issue/question, but have noted the relevant facts. We also note that the auction-purchaser is not a party to the present writ petition.

5. As far as present writ petition and the reasoning given by the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order dated 21st July, 2014 are concerned, we do not think that the matter requires or merits interference. The petitioner’s contention is that the original adjudication order dated 9th December, 2009 was sent under certificate of posting, whereas under the rules the adjudication order should have been sent under registered post, reflect an ignorable irregularity as the factum that the adjudication order was sent and was duly received at the correct address is not disputed. The order sent by post was enclosed and filed along with the belated grounds of appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal. Delay of 733 days is substantial and an indication that the adjudication order was accepted. No doubt, the petitioner became seriously ill on 25th March, 2011, but this would explain the delay for the period thereafter, it would not explain the delay for the prior period. We also notice that there is no averment or statement that the order dated 9th December, 2009 was not duly served or received by the company M/s South India Fuel Private Limited or the wife of the petitioner, Smt. L. Swaranlakshmi, who have been impleaded as proforma respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to the present writ petition.

6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but with the aforesaid observations. We clarify that this order will not be construed as a binding observation in the proceedings pending before the DRT.

SANJIV KHANNA, J. R.S. ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 29, 2014 VKR