(Order of the Court was made by THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned proceedings dated 24.07.2014 issued by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in I.A.No.722 of 2012 in AIR No.525 of 2012 (M.A.No.71/2012 in O.A.No.70/2009 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai) and to consequently direct the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to dispose of AIR No.525 of 2012 expeditiously.
2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Agnite Education Limited, Velachery, Chennai. It is stated by the petitioner that M/s.Agnite Education Limited was sanctioned with advance payment guarantee by the first respondent bank. Under the said guarantee, a sum of Rs.40,54,50,000/- was due and payable to the first respondent by the petitioner company. The first respondent had a term deposit of Rs.24,50,00,000/- lying in its account, in respect of the petitioner, and the said amount was set off against the alleged outstanding amount. On the first respondent approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai in O.A.No.70 of 2009 for recovery, an order was passed resulting in the issuance of DRC No.27 of 2011 against the petitioner-company and its other entities. The first respondent also filed M.A.No.71 of 2012 in O.A.No.70 of 2009 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, seeking a direction against the petitioner to surrender the passport and to restrain the petitioner from leaving India, against which an ex-parte order was also passed against the petitioner to surrender the passport and also restraining the petitioner from leaving India without the permission of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal along with interlocutory applications.
Since there was no representation, the interlocutory applications were dismissed for default, followed by the dismissal of the appeal itself. Thereafter, various petitions were filed on both sides. Now, the petitioner prays to quash the impugned order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in I.A.No.722 of 2012 in AIR No.525 of 2012 and to issue a direction to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to dispose of AIR No.525 of 2012 expeditiously.
3. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has failed to note that the fundamental right of the citizen to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is subject to only reasonable restriction under law. He submits that the Debts Recovery Tribunal had curtailed the right of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution by imposing a condition that he cannot travel out of the country. Stating so, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the first respondent bank refuted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, and submitted that the writ petition has to be dismissed, as the petitioner had not taken any steps to settle the remaining amount borrowed.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the fundamental right of the citizen to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is subject to only reasonable restriction under law. Even if that be so, unless and until the petitioner makes some arrangement for discharging the balance debt, he cannot seek for quashment of the impugned order, on that ground. The petitioner has the obligation to make arrangement for discharging the debts to the satisfaction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal with regard to the re-payment of remaining loan amount. It is seen from the records, that the petitioner has neither paid any amount in respect of the balance outstanding, nor taken any steps for making payment. Without taking any efforts to make even a part payment, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In the order impugned, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has stated that the petitioner has caused a creation of a 'NPA' which in turn has affected the economic well being of the nation. Thus, the petitioner pleads that the petitioner company had become bankrupt, which is not an answer for non-payment of the dues.
7. In view of the above stated reasons, the writ petition deserves only to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes (H.G.R.,ACJ.) (R.M.D.,J.) Internet : Yes 01.03.2017 KM THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND R.MAHADEVAN, J.
KM W.P.No.22204 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 01.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in