IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 513 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.1.2009.
Lt.Col. A.S.Sabharwal
....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation,
Ltd and others
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:- Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Deepika, Advocate
for the petitioner.
RAJESH BINDAL J.
****
The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the
learned Court below in an application filed by the petitioner under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a suit filed by him for declaration and mandatory
injunction. The prayer in the application was that during the pendency of the suit,
the respondent-PSIDC be restrained from selling the property.
Briefly the facts are that respondent No.2 Sumer International Ltd.,
was the loanee of PSIDC. On account of default in payment of loan, property
was put to auction. The petitioner was a successful bidder in the auction held on
November 25, 2002. In fact this auction was held during pendency of an
application filed by respondent No.2-loanee before the Board for Industrial and
Financial Reconstruction ( for short ‘the BIFR’). Section 22 of Sick and Industrial
Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SICA
Act’) specifically debars taking any coercive steps for recovery of loan during the
pendency of an application filed before the BIFR under Section 16 of the SICA
Act. The petitioner at the time of auction had deposited a sum of Rs.2 lacs as
security in order to participate in the auction proceedings. After the acceptance
of his bid the petitioner was required to deposit 25% of auction money of Rs.2
crore. However, the amount was not deposited within the time prescribed but a
plea was sought to be taken that the corporation would require permission from
BIFR before the possession of property is handed over to the petitioner in terms
of provisions of Section 22 of the SICA Act. The permission was declined by the
BIFR. Finally on September 30, 2004 that the application filed by respondent
No.2 loanee was rejected by the BIFR as not maintainable. The loanee even
failed before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter the petitioner filed a suit for
declaration and possession of the property on payment of the auction price.
C.R. No.513 of 2009 (O&M) -2
Considering the aforesaid facts this Court is of the view that the
petitioner is not entitled to any interim injunction for sale of property by the
corporation for recovery of loan due against respondent No.2-loanee. Section 22
of the SICA Act clearly debars the sale of property and not merely handing over
the possession of the property to any prospective successful bidder in auction.
The property of the loanee was sold by the PSIDC during the pendency of the
application filed by him before the BIFR. The petitioner in the present case had
merely participated in the auction by depositing of Rs.2 lacs. After acceptance
of bid on November 25, 2002, 25% of the offer price of Rs.2 crores was to be
deposited within 15 days thereafter. The same was not deposited by the
petitioner.
Faced with the situation learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that as the dispute is pending in the Court let any steps taken by the corporation
for sale of the property be subject to the decision of the suit. Even this prayer of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is well protected under Section 52 of the
Transfer of Property Act.
Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. Any
observation made in this order will not have any bearing on final disposal of the
suit.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
29.1.2009 JUDGE
Reema