9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 2004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No.7 in the same writ petition. They call in question tenability of an order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the learned Writ Court at the instance of respondent No.1 herein M/s Eclat Industries Limited- writ petitioner in CWJC No.4748 of 2013, wherein the Writ Court has issued certain directions to the State Government in the matter of providing "corpus fund" and benefit of rehabilitation under the Bihar State Micro and Small Enterprises Rehabilitation Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2008'). It was the case of the respondent- writ petitioner M/s Eclat Industries Limited in the writ petition that a direction be issued to the State Government and the Departments of Industries in the State Government, who are added as respondent Nos.1 to 4, to provide relief by way of fund to the writ petitioner-Company in accordance to the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 framed by the State of Bihar for revival of sick industry and further prayer was that International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC), appellant in LPA No.316 of 2017, be restrained from effecting recovery against the writ petitioner-respondent no.1 in accordance to the provisions of the Securitization and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provide relief by way of corpus fund as envisaged under the Industrial Policy of 2011 and further to restrain the appellant in LPA No.316 of 2017 International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC) from proceeding with the coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act. Records indicate that after the writ petition was filed, notices were issued and the Industrial Development Commissioner for the State of Bihar was summoned and it is seen that certain proceedings were pending and the State Government was to take a decision with regard to creation of a corpus fund under the Industrial Policy of 2011 for payment to the respondent writ petitioner M/s Eclat Industries Limited. When the matter, was so pending, an offer was also made by the counsel for the writ petitioner on 04.03.2014 for payment of certain dues to the appellant International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC) on or before 31.03.2014. It seems that during pendency of the writ petition, the appellant International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. ( IARC) agreed for settlement of the claim in case they are paid a sum of Rs.250 lacs. It was agreed that a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- would be paid by 31st March, 2014 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. ( IARC) is concerned, it is their contention that once the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated and pending, the Writ Court could not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and by passing the impugned order, the entire statutory right of the appellant for recovery of the amount as far as the SARFAESI Act gets frustrated. It is indicated that once the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were pending, the writ petition was not maintainable and as the right of the appellant in LPA No.316 of 2017 has been taken away by the Writ Court without any jurisdiction, the order so far as it restrains the appellant International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC) is concerned, the same should be quashed and they granted liberty to proceed to effect the recovery under the SARFAESI Act. As far as appellant Canara Bank in LPA No.1887 of 2016 is concerned, it is their contention that the decision of the Apex Committee taken on 28.10.2014 is not binding on them. It was taken in the State Level Committee held on 28.10.2014 when the Bank was not represented, the decision was taken behind the back of the Bank and immediately a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), appellant in LPA No.316 of 2017, have never acceded or accepted the proposals and the decision taken by the Apex Committee. In fact, if the proceedings of the Apex Committee and the deliberations that were held from time to time are taken note of, it would be seen that they only objected to the same and it was their case that they have also initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and, therefore, they want time to take a decision in the matter. That apart, as far as appellant Canara Bank is concerned, it is seen that in the meeting held on 28.10.2014, no representative was present and immediately after the decision was taken on 28.10.2014, they had approached the Industries Department with a letter dated 06.11.2014 and pointed out the Techno Economic Viability Study report dated 30.05.2015, the cost of project being Rs.6.46 crore and the sanction of the Bank towards term loan of Rs.2.24 crore and working capital loan of Rs.1.10 crore. Therefore, on a complete analysis of the issue in question, it is seen that the Apex Committee's decision taken on 28.10.2014 is being implemented by the mandamus issued by the Writ Court on the assumption that it is an agreed decision and bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Committee was not taken in the presence of the appellant Canara Bank in LPA No.1887 of 2016 and the appellant International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC) in LPA No.316 of 2017 were also not a consenting party to the rehabilitation package. Taking note of all the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned Writ Court in the facts and circumstances should not have interfered into the matter and issue the mandamus as done, instead, the appellant International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC) in LPA No.316 of 2017 should have been granted liberty to proceed with the proceedings initiated by them under the SARFAESI Act and as the decision of the Apex Committee with regard to direction to the Canara Bank was taken behind their back for the purpose of considering rehabilitation package, the matter should have been remitted back to the Apex Level Committee to reconsider the matter instead directing to implement a decision which was not taken in accordance to the requirement of law, i.e. with the consent of all concerned, and even without taking note of various objections, including the objection of Canara Bank based on TEV report dated 30.05.2015, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
