1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5220/2009 M/s Bellevue Water Resort Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 9.7.2010 HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Shambhoo Singh, for the petitioners. This petition for writ is preferred to assail validity, propriety and correctness of the final order dated 21.4.2005 passed by learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi in Original Application No.162/2001. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 desired to set up a water park and hotel at Abu Road, thus applied with financial institution “Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd.” to sanction Rupee Term Loan exceeding Rs.300.00 lacs. The financial institution after usual proceedings sanctioned the Rupee Term Loan. However, the petitioners failed to maintain financial discipline and neglected to repay installments of principal interest, charges and liquidated damages as per loan agreement. As a consequence to the defaults above, huge amount became 2 due and outstanding in the accounts of the petitioners. The respondent financial institution thus initiated recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to recover a total sum of Rs.5,62,70,987/- only by way of filing an Original Application. Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and on examination of entire record reached at the conclusion that the financial institution deserves to be issued a recovery certificate, accordingly the Original Application was allowed. The petitioner Company and petitioner No.2 with three other defendants in the Original Application were jointly and severally made accountable to satisfy the due amount of Rs.5,62,70,987/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of Original Application. A recovery certificate too was issued accordingly with a direction to recovery officer to realise the amount as per certificate. While challenging the order impugned, the only arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were ready and willing to settle the dispute by making payment in a tune of Rs.4,26,00,000/- on 11.4.2006, but the financial institution did not choose to co-operate. I do not finding any merit in the arguments advanced. As a matter of fact, the Original Application itself was decided on 21.4.2005 and thereafter, recovery certificate was also issued and as such, 3 there was no occasion to enter any one time settlement as claimed by the petitioners. Quite half heartedly, it is also stated that there was no need for the respondents for issuing proclamation of sale for the mortgaged property after receiving the recovery certificate. As a matter of fact, from perusal of the averments made in the petition for writ it appears that despite proclamation of sale, the sale was not made then too no effort was there at the part of the petitioners to satisfy the default and in such circumstances a warrant of arrest was issued by the competent authority to arrest the petitioner No.2. Thus, the course adopted is in accordance with law. As such, petition for writ is having no merit and therefore, the same is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. RM/