Lalsons vs. OBC DRT SARFAESI APPEAL DRT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- III, NEW DELHI
S A No. ____________ 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S LALSONS JEWELLERS LTD. & ORS …APPLICANTS
Versus
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE …DEFENDANTS
INDEX
Sl.No Particulars Page No

1 Memo of parties.
2 List of Dates and events.
3 Appeal Under Section 17 (1)Of The SARFAESI Act, 2002

alongwith supporting affidavits.
4 List of Documents alongwith documents.
5 Vakalatanama
APPLICANT
SETHI & ASSOCIATES

DATED : 10.06.2016 ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANT,
PLACE : NEW DELHI. F-18, L.G.F., LAJPAT NAGAR-III,
NEW DELHI.
BEFORE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- III, NEW DELHI
S A No. ____________ 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. M/S LALSONS JEWELLERS LTD.

23-B/6, NEW ROHTAK ROAD,
NEW DELHI.
2. MR. KESHO RAM VERMA

A-3/171, PASCHIM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI – 110063.S
3. MRS. RAJ DULARI VERMA

NEW DELHI - 110063.
4. MR. RAJEEV PAUL SINGH VERMA.

NEW DELHI – 110063.
5. M/s R MALIK & COMPANY PVT. LTD.

Alternate Address:

NEW DELHI – 110063. …..APPELLANT
VERSUS
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

1ST FLOOR, HARSHA BHAWAN,
CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI – 110001. ….RESPONDENT
APPLICANT
SETHI & ASSOCIATES

DATE : 10.06.2016 ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANT,
NEW DELHI.
S A No. ____________ 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
APPLICATION/APPEAL UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 17 OF THE

SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND
ENFORCEMENT SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 ON BEHALF OF THE
APPLICANTS AGAINST POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 27.04.2016 ISSUED
BY PRIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE W.R.T. THE LOAN FACILITIES
GRANTED TO M/s LALSONS JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED.
1. Particulars of the applicants:
(a) Particulars of the applicant no. 1.
(i) Name of applicant no. 1 M/S LALSONS JEWELLERS LTD.
(ii) Address of the registered office. 23-B/6, NEW ROHTAK ROAD,

NEW DELHI.
(iii) Address for service of all notices. 23-B/6, NEW ROHTAK ROAD,
NEW DELHI.
(b) Particulars of the applicant no. 2.
(i) Name of applicant no. 2 MR. KESHO RAM VERMA.
(ii) Registered office address NOT APPLICABLE.
(iii) Address for service of notice A-3/171, PASCHIM VIHAR,

NEW DELHI - 110063.
(c) Particulars of applicant no. 3.
(i) Name of applicant no. 3 MRS. RAJ DULARI VERMA
(ii) Address of the registered office. NOT APPLICABLE.

(iii) Address for service of all notices. A-3/171, PASCHIM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI - 110063.
(d) Particulars of applicant no. 4.
i) Name of applicant no. 4 MR. RAJEEV PAUL SINGH VERMA.
(ii) Address of the registered office. NOT APPLICABLE.

(e) Particulars of applicant no. 5.
i) Name of applicant no. 5 R MALIK & COMPANY PVT. LTD.
(ii) Address of the registered office. A-3/171, PASCHIM VIHAR,


2. Details of the defendant.
(i) Name of the defendant ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED
OFFICER,
CONNAUGHT PLACE,
(ii) Address of the corporate office. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

PLOT NO. 5, INSTUTIONAL AREA,
SECTOR 32, GURGAON,
HARYANA- 122001.
(iii) Address service of all notices. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED
OFFICER,
LARGE CORPORATE BRANCH,
CONNAUGHT PLACE,
(3) Jurisdiction of Tribunal.
Applicant declares that the subject matter of this application falls within the
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal as one of the three properties in question i.e.
23-B/6, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Rohtak Road Property’) and even the concerned branch of the
Applicant Bank is functioning as a Bank at Connaught Place i.e. within the falls
within the pecuniary jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(4) Limitation.
Applicant further declares that this application is filed within prescribed limitation
under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’) as the Possession Notice dated
27th April 2016 issued under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, was pasted /
affixed only on 27th April 2016 at the Mortgaged Properties.
(5) Facts of the case.
Facts of the case are mentioned as below :-
5.1 The Applicant no. 1 is a highly reputed and renowned jeweler having an excellent
reputation in the industry and the market and it is popular for its fair dealing and
purity. The applicant no 1 deals in both retail and wholesale trade of jewelry and
further the applicant no 1 has also been engaged in the export of jewelry
(including precious stone studded jewellery). The applicant no 1 has a retail
showroom of jewellery at Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh and even the factory of the
applicant no 1 is situated in the same premises/building.
5.2 Lalsons Jewelers had started dealing and manufacturing of handmade jewellery
in the year 1987 however with the development of technology and in view of the
modernisation and the changing times, Lalsons Jewelers transformed to machine
made jewellery in the year 1994 and converted itself into a Company (duly
incorporated under the Companies Act) and has since been carrying on the
business of retail, wholesale and export of jewellery.

5.3 The Applicant no. 1 has a certificate of a Star Trading House Status from the
Ministry of commerce and industry. Further the applicant no 1 and its
management have an extensive experience in the development of its product
and manufacture of jewellery and it is renowned for its designing, finishing and
purity of gold. And it also had its presence not only in India but also
internationally. Further the Applicant no 1 was a major exporter of Jewelry to
Foreign Countries including Dubai.
5.4 The applicant no 1 prides itself for its high-quality stones studded jewellery and
its designing and the Applicant no. 1 has also inter alia won / achieved the
following milestones :-
i. Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council have awarded the applicant
no 1 as the top exporter for jewellery consecutively for five years being the
years 1991 - 1995.
ii. The applicant no. 1 has received status of export house in the year 1996.
iii. The applicant no 1 has been registered as star trading house with the
comment of India in the year 2009.
5.5. That the Applicant no 1 its predecessor in interest being Lalsons Jewelers has
been banking with the Respondent Bank for over 28-29 years and has had excel-
lent and blemish free record (including with the Respondent Bank) and had been
fulfilling all of its obligations.
5.6. The same would be evident from the fact that there have been regular enhance-
ments / fresh grant of loans by the respondent bank to the Applicant no 1 during
the previous 28/29 years of the Applicant no. 1 banking with the Respondent
Bank.
5.7 That unfortunately the on account of the acute slowdown and slump in the global
economy coupled with the drastic fluctuations in the global Gold Prices (Globally
the prices of Gold in the past 5 years have fluctuated from approximately USD
1900 to USD 1050 per ounce) the business of the Applicant no. 1 started facing
problems especially in its Dubai operations/exports, which gravely impacted the
business of the applicant.
5.8 That the applicant no. 1 being duly intent on fulfilling its obligations, duly informed
and updated the respondent bank of all the developments and to tide over the
exigency caused on account of the hostile business environment the Applicant
no. 1 had vide its letter dated 12/03/2015 applied for restructuring of the Loan
facilities granted to the Applicant no. 1 by the Respondent Bank. The Applicant
no. 1 had given a highly comprehensive and elaborate request for the
restructuring duly explaining and stating the reasons on account of which the
same had been required.
5.9 That the respondent bank had on the request of the Applicant no. 1, had vide its
letter dated 19/03/2015, engaged their empanelled Chartered Accountant (D.P.
Gupta & Co.) To carry out a TEV (Total Enterprise Value) study of the project of
the Applicant no. 1.
5.10 That the said empanelled Chartered Accountant (D.P. Gupta & Co.) had duly
carried out the said study and had submitted its report dated 28/03/2015 after a
detailed study of the financial condition, accounts, technical process, background
and experience of the promoters and personal, organizational structure, past
performance of the applicant no 1, technical process, infrastructure facilities
marketing plans etc and as the per the detailed and highly comprehensive report
of the said study it had been duly opined / found / concluded by the said
empanelled Chartered Accountant (D.P. Gupta & Co.) after a comprehensive
study that the project of the applicant no. 1 was duly viable.
The Overall Conclusion of the said study was that the project of the Applicant no.
1 was "Technically, Economically and financially viable in the long run".
5.11. That the respondent bank had also accepted the genuine reasons of the
applicant no 1 which required the restructuring and had caused the requirement
for the same. Accordingly the respondent bank had appreciated the request of
the applicant no 1 by sanctioning the restructured facilities. However
unfortunately the respondent bank had taken too much time in the restructuring
process, which had been finally been sanctioned vide sanction letter dated
26/06/2015. That surprisingly there had been another restructuring by the
Respondent Bank vide its letter dated 03/09/2015 (without the request of the
Applicant) and the restructuring had also been only approved by the Respondent
Bank vide its letter dated 03/09/2015.
5.12 It is pertinent to mention herein that the applicant no 1 had vide its letter dated
12/10/2015 requested the respondent bank to give credit of the amounts (totaling
to approximately Rs. 1.39 Crores) wrongly credited in the account of the
Applicant no. 1. The same had been occasioned on account of the below
mentioned:-
i. That the interest on all facilities had been agreed to be fixed at 50 basis
points over base rate of the bank and the said was also correctly mentioned in
the covering letter of the sanction. However the same was wrongly mentioned as
75 basis points over the base rate and was also wrongly debited at the higher
rate in the account of the applicant no 1. Thus a higher rate of interest had been
charged in the loan accounts of the applicant no 1.
ii. That the cut-off date for the restructuring had been 1 March 2015 and the
same was also duly indicated in the detailed terms and conditions for the
WCTL1, WCTL2 and FITL facilities granted to the applicant no 1 vide the
restructuring however the benefit of the reduction of the rate of was not given to
the applicant no 1.
iii. The respondent bank had incorrectly charged penal interest when the
LCs had devolved though the same / penal interest should not have been
charged since conversion of Non Fund based facilities to fund-based facilities (by
the restructuring with effect from 1 March 2015) was an integral part of the
restructuring.
iv. The conversion of the Overdue Foreign bills into WCTL also required to
be charged interest at the lower rate sanctioned however the same had been
charged at a higher rate.
That the contents of the said letter may be read as part and parcel of the present
para as the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and to
avoid repetition. The applicants further reserve the right to highlight the other
amounts wrongly debited by the respondent bank. The Respondent Bank has till
date not raised any objections to the request of the Applicant no. 1 thus clearly
showing that the Bank has no objection to these credits however despite the
same the Respondent Bank has not given the credit of these excessively
charged amounts to the Applicant no.1.
5.13 It is also significant to mention herein that the respondent bank had also got a
forensic audit of the accounts of the main client of the applicant no 1, in Dubai, to
rule out any foul play on the part of the Applicant no 1. It is pertinent to mention
herein that no wrongdoing or foul play on the part of the applicant no 1 was found
in the said Forensic Audit since the losses had been caused on account of
genuine business bad debts to the main client of the applicant no 1 which had
been caused due to the adverse market conditions.
5.14 That the basic raw material for the applicant no 1, was gold. That as the
Applicant no 1 was highly conscious and diligent about the quality and purity of
the gold, it used to procure the same from Nova Scotia Bank. That the applicant
no 1 also enjoyed a Gold Loan from Nova Scotia Bank of 400 Kg of Gold against
submission of SBLC (Standby Letter of Credit). That however on account of the
delay in the restructuring of the credit facilities by the Respondent Bank and the
incorrect classification of the account as substandard by the Respondent Bank,
Nova Scotia Bank decided not to continue its business relationship with the
applicant no 1 and also invoke the LCs which amounted to approximately Rs.
60.40 Crores. That the same had caused additional burden on the already tight
working capital of the applicant no 1 and caused a sudden surge in the
outstanding of the Applicant no. 1 to the Respondent Bank. Further on account of
the excessive payment made by the Respondent Bank without the consent or
confirmation from the Applicant no. 1 the Applicant no. 1 had to suffer losses of
Rs. 6 Crores (approx) on account of security/margin money retained by Nova
Scotia for Customs Duty claims. The same thus caused loss of approx. Rs. 6
Crores to the Applicant no.1.
5.15 In absence of the supplier of gold, the basic raw material for the applicant no 1,
the business of the applicant no 1 had to face huge adversities however there
was no support extended to the applicant no 1 by the Respondent Bank. That as

the applicant no 1 had to face a huge liquidity crunch and the wholesale and
export of Jewelry is a low margin and high Capital requirement based business,
the business of the applicant no 1 also suffered immensely.
5.16 That however again the applicants being honest and well intent to the core and
also desirous of honoring their commitments and obligations, kept the
respondent bank duly and timely informed of all the events.
5.17 To tide over the financial liquidity crunch caused on account of the above
mentioned the applicant no 1 had requested the respondent bank for a little
amendment in the credit facilities and further the applicant had also offered that
to reduce the loan outstanding the applicant would sell its mortgaged properties
(by way of private Sale with the prior permission of the Bank) for the realization of
the Banks Dues. The applicant no 1 had also recommended that a separate
account could be opened for the applicant no 1 and for the recovery of the loan
outstanding the respondent bank could hold back 5% off all sale proceeds /
deposits made in the said bank account. The same would also ensure due
recovery of the outstanding of the bank and would also not strangle the business
of the applicant no 1. However the bank had without responding regarding the
requests of the applicant no 1 wrongly and incorrectly classified the account of
the applicant no 1 as NPA despite the fact that the talks were still going on with
the bank and the Account(s)/Loan(s) were under restructuring. That had the
credit for the incorrect debits made by the respondent bank been given to the
applicant no 1 then the account of the applicant no 1 would not have been
declared as NPA on 31 December 2015.
5.18 That even thereafter the applicant no 1 had given a proposal vide email dated 15
January 2016 to the respondent bank stating that it would deposit an amount of
Rs. 1 crore by 31/03/2016 and in addition to the same the bank could adjust 5%
of all credits made in the bank account of the applicant no 1 further the applicant
no 1 had also offered that it would sell its properties and deposit the sale
proceeds of the same with the respondent bank. That thereafter the applicant no
1 had also sent a detailed proposal to the respondent bank on 16 January 2016.
5.19 That after repeated follow-up by the applicant the respondent bank had vide its
letter dated 9 February 2016 informed the applicant no 1 that the competent
authorities of the respondent bank had vide HLCC no. 30 dated 30/01/2016
approved the Holding On Operations (hereinafter referred to as the "Holding
Back Operations") with 5% cutback in the bank account of the applicant no 1, by
opening a separate current-account in the name of the Applicant no 1 till the
restructuring plan is finalized or such other date as advised by the sanctioning
authority. It is pertinent to mention herein that as Holding Back Operations it had
been agreed that a separate bank account would be opened by the applicant no
1 with the respondent bank and all business proceeds / transactions of the
applicant no 1 would be routed through the same and the respondent bank would
hold back 5% of all such credits/deposits/sale proceeds etc in this bank account
for the purpose of realisation of its dues. That on account of this holding back
operations the bank would also realise its dues and even the business operations
of the applicant no 1 would not come to a sudden halt.
5.20 That it is also pertinent to mention herein that this process was in fact the only
way for the bank to recover its dues since even as per the own averments of the
respondent bank the realizable value of all of the mortgaged properties (including
the showroom and the factory premises of the applicant no 1) are around Rs. 32
Crores whereas the outstanding amount (as per the respondent bank and which
figure is vehemently denied by the applicants) is around Rs. 171 Crores.
5.21 That the applicant no 1 had itself offered to the respondent bank that it would sell
its mortgaged properties (including part of the Rohtak Road property where the
applicant no 1 has its showroom and factory) and thereby the respondent bank
would also take the benefit of the mortgage properties and also the benefit of
realising its other dues from the sale proceeds of the applicant no 1.
5.22 That incase the mortgaged properties are auctioned by the respondent then the
same would be done at throwaway price and the due benefit of the mortgaged
properties would not be derived by this process. Further in case the complete
Building of the Rohtak Road property is auctioned then the business of the
applicant no 1 would be completely shut down, since the showroom and factory
of the applicant no 1 is situated in the same. Consequently there would be no
other viable scope or manner for the recovery of the balance dues of the
respondent bank. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that the realisable value
of the mortgaged property (as per the valuation of the bank) is itself around 18-
19% of the outstanding amount (as claimed by the respondent bank). That this
process would in fact be detrimental to the interests of not only the applicants
and also the hundreds of families of the employees of the applicant no 1 but even
to the interest of the Respondent Bank, as they would not be left with any other
viable or practical solution for the recovery of the balance outstanding.
5.23 That the bonafide intentions of the applicant would be evident from the fact that
the applicant had also offered to sell its residential property for the recovery of
the dues claimed by the respondent bank.
5.24. That despite the fact that the respondent bank had agreed for the Holding Back
Operations the respondent bank had in complete disregard of the same had
issued a demand notice dated 15 February 2016 under Section 13(2) of The
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act").
5.25. That even thereafter the respondent bank had continued with the Holding Back
Operations thus acknowledging the fact that the same was the only viable and
practical solution for the recovery of the bank's dues.
5.26 That the applicant no 1 had within the prescribed time period duly replied to the
said demand notice (Under Section 13[2] of the SARFAESI Act) vide its
objections/representation dated 15/04/2016 (posted on the same day). That

however the respondent bank has till date in violation of the mandatory
provisions of the SARFAESI Act not responded or replied or dealt with the
objections raised by the applicant no 1. It is pertinent to mention herein that even
the respondent bank is duly aware of the fact that the objections raised by the
applicant no 1 are completely correct and the same cannot be brushed away and
as such it has not responded or dealt with the same.
5.27 It is pertinent to mention herein that the applicant no 1 had been repeatedly
requesting the respondent bank not to pursue with the possession notice since
the applicant were already ready to liquidate / Sell the mortgaged properties (by
retaining part of the Rohtak Road property for the limited purpose of carrying on
the business operations of the applicant no 1) since the same would significantly
hamper/prejudice the realizable value of these properties since after publication
of the notice these properties would only be sold/auctioned as properties under
litigation and even otherwise such properties are unable to realise there proper
market value.
5.28 That thereafter the respondent bank has also in violation of the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act and in complete disregard not only to the requests of the
applicant but also to the own interest of the bank, issued the possession notice
on 27 April 2016 and has also published the same in Newspapers thereby
drastically hampering the realisable value of the mortgaged properties. This act
of the respondent bank as not only caused huge losses to the applicant but has
also prejudice the interests of the bank itself and also prejudice the realisable
value of these properties and the chances for recovery of the bank's dues.
5.29 It is pertinent to mention herein that even till date the respondent bank is
continuing with the Holding Back Operations and the applicant no 1 has also fully
cooperated in the same (despite the fact that there had been a complete
countrywide strike of jewellers in protest to the levy of excise tax). The
respondent bank has also by it is conduct accepted the genuine stand of the
applicant no 1 and has accordingly even issued a cheque-book for the newly
opened current-account to the applicant no 1 vide its letter dated 9 March 2016
(which are subsequent to the demand notice under the SARFAESI Act), however
despite the same the respondent bank is without application of mind has
proceeded with the steps under the SARFAESI Act for auction of the mortgage
properties.
5.30 That the Applicant no. 1 had also given a OTS proposal dated 02/05/2016 to the
Respondent Bank however the same was hastily and summarily
dismissed/rejected by the Bank on the very next day vide its letter dated
03/05/2016. It is evident that the procedure / guidelines of the Bank for dealing
with settlement proposals could not be done in a single day and as such the OTS
proposal has been dismissed/rejected by the Respondent Bank without following
any procedure for the same.
5.31 That being aggrieved by the possession notice dated 27 April 2016 the applicant
are filing the present appeal before this Honorable Tribunal on the below
mentioned grounds.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
A. Because the respondent bank has not even responded or replied or dealt with
the objections raised by the applicant no 1 vide its letter/objections dated 15 April
2016 (also posted on 15 April 2016). It is respectfully stated that it is mandatory
under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to adjudicate / deal with / respond to
the objections raised by the borrower within a period of 10 days from the receipt
of the same. That this provision has been specifically incorporated for the
purpose that deserving and meritorious cases like the present one do not suffer
at the high handed approach and attitude of the banks which is armed with the
powers of the SARFAESI Act. That as such on the failure of the respondent bank
to adjudicate/dispose off the objections raised by the applicant no 1 in response
to the demand notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the entire
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are vitiated and are liable to be struck
down.
B. Because the Respondent Bank has as detailed above, had merely only 6 days
prior to the issuance of the demand notice intimated the approval/sanction of the
proposal for Holding Back Operations for the sole motive of recovery of the Loan
Outstanding. The Holding Back Operations had been
approved/allowed/permitted by the Bank vide HLCC no. 30 dated 30/01/2016
whereby a 5% cutback in the bank account of the applicant no 1 was allowed, by
restructuring plan is finalised or such other date as advised by the sanctioning
authority. However the Respondent Bank during the tenure of the Holding Back
Operations System has initiated the SARFAESI Proceedings. That as such the
present proceedings are not as per law and the objective, intent and provisions of
the SARFAESI Act and are as such liable to be set aside at the threshold itself.
C. Because on account of the approval of the above mentioned Holding Back
Operation by the Bank vide the Respondent Bank's HLCC no. 30 dated
30/01/2016 (till such time that the Loans of the Applicant no. 1 had been
restructured), the Loan Accounts had no longer been in default since the Holding
Back Operations was being duly acted upon and the Respondent bank was
taking due benefit of the same. That as such any action of the Respondent Bank
under the SARFAESI Act are completely contrary to the principles of natural
justice, doctrine of estoppel and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act itself.
D. Because it is the intention, object and motive of the Recovery Of Debts Due To
Banks And Institutions Act and also the SARFAESI Act that the dues of the Banks
should be recovered and genuine reasons and cases and viable projects should
not be strangled on account of genuine delay/default in repayment of the Banks
dues. However in the present case the completely viable business project (which
has been in business for the past 29 years) would be completely strangled. The
empanelled Chartered Accountants of the Respondent Bank have carried out an
extensive TEV / Business Project Feasibility report which has undisputedly
concluded that the Business Project of the Applicant no. 1 is Technically,

Economically and Financially viable in the long run". That as such the
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in the present Case are completely
contrary to the spirit, objective and intent of the SARFAESI Act. That as such the
present proceedings of the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act are liable
to be dismissed/set aside/quashed at the threshold.
E. Because the process for recovery of the Bank's dues is already under process by
means of the Holding Back Operations and as such the dues of the Respondent
Bank can be recovered effectively and properly by means of the Holding Back
Operations. The dues of the Respondent Bank can only be effectively recovered
by means of restructuring and private sale of the mortgaged properties (with only
part of the Rohtak Road Property). Thus the present proceedings of the
Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act are liable to be dismissed/set
aside/quashed at the threshold.
F. Because the Respondent Bank has without dismissed the OTS proposal of the
applicant no. 1 without following the prescribed procedure of the Bank and
without even giving any consideration to the same.
G. Because the Authorized Officer of the respondent bank who has purportedly
issued the notice under the SARFESI Act has no authority from the respondent
bank to issue the same. That it is pertinent to mention herein that no where it is
mentioned on the face of the said notice that who has authorized the said officer /
representative of the respondent bank to issue the said notice which is infact a
mandatory requirement under the SARFESI Act and hence the proceedings
initiated by the respondent bank are liable to be dismissed and rejected.
H. That it is further submitted herein that the respondent bank even failed to convey
to the applicants about the revision in the interest rate to be charged from the
applicants. The respondent bank had itself had agreed that it would charge
interest rate at a lower rate, whereas in gross violation of their own terms and
conditions of the sanction letter dated 26/06/2015 with respect to the interest to
be charged by the respondent bank, the respondent bank has charged interest at
a higher rate, which is highly exorbitant and uncalled-for and as such there was a
substantial increase in the total outstanding of the loan facility availed by the
applicants which is against the policy of natural justice and hence the
proceedings undertaken by the respondent bank under the SARFESI Act are
grossly not maintainable in the eyes of law.
I. That it is pertinent to mention herein that the respondent bank has overlooked
the fact that prior to the process of restructuring of the loan a Total Enterprise
Valuation (TEV) has to be conducted. That it is underlined herein that in the case
in the restructuring was done on the basis of the good conduct, honouring of
commitments by the applicant no. 1 and further on the basis of the TEV report
which also reflects the status of the business of the applicant no. 1 and further
states the fact that the business of the applicant no. 1 has good prospects and
the same could be revived over a period of time. That keeping in view the
aforementioned facts, the proceedings under the SARFESI Act are completely
uncalled-for and not required.
J. That further the respondent bank also failed to appreciate and consider the fact
that the applicant no. 1 themselves proposed for a 5% cut back from all the
amounts / monies credited in the newly opened current account of the applicant
no. 1 with the respondent bank which was opened in furtherance of the Holding
of operations of the applicant no. 1 and hence the classification of the accounts
of the applicant no. 1 into a Non Performing Asset are completely illegal, arbitrary
on the part of the respondent bank.
6. Relief (s) sought.
In view of the facts mentioned in para 5 hereinabove the Applicant prays for the
following relief :-
1. That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside/quash the proceedings
taken by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act against the mortgaged
Properties being :-
i. Residential Property on Plot no. A-3/171, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
owned by applicant no. 3 and applicant no. 2 the realizable value of which
as on 10.07.2015 as per the respondent bank is Rs. 9.08 Crores.
ii. Commercial Office bearing no. DSM-229, DLF Towers, Moti Nagar, New
Delhi owned by applicant no. 4 the realizable value of which as on
10.07.2015 as per the respondent bank is Rs. 0.87 Crores.
iii. Commercial property at 23-B/6, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New
Delhi 110005 owned by applicant no. 5 the realizable value of which as on
10.07.2015 as per the respondent bank is Rs. 22.08 Crores;
2. That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondent Bank to
withdraw the demand notice dated 15/02/2016 and the possession notice dated
27.04.2014 against the above mentioned mortgaged Properties or in the
alternate quash the demand notice dated 15/02/2016 and the possession notice
dated 27.04.2014 issued under the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI
Act..
3. This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to restrain the Respondent Bank from
taking any action under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002 against Applicant or the subject
properties being :-
ii. Commercial Office bearing no. DSM-229, DLF Towers, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi
iii. 23-B/6, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005;
or in any manner interfering with the possession of the applicants over the
subject properties.
4. This Hon’ble Tribunal may pass any order in the interest of justice against the
defendants and in favour of the Applicant which this Hon’ble Tribunal feels fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. Grounds for Relief.
A. Because the respondent bank has not even responded or replied or dealt with
the objections raised by the applicant no 1 vide its letter/objections dated 15 April
2016 (also posted on 15 April 2016). It is respectfully stated that it is mandatory
under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to adjudicate / deal with / respond to
the objections raised by the borrower within a period of 10 days from the receipt
of the same. That this provision has been specifically incorporated for the
purpose that deserving and meritorious cases like the present one do not suffer
at the high handed approach and attitude of the banks which is armed with the
powers of the SARFAESI Act. That as such on the failure of the respondent bank
to adjudicate/dispose off the objections raised by the applicant no 1 in response
to the demand notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the entire
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are vitiated and are liable to be struck
down.
B. Because the Respondent Bank has as detailed above, had merely only 6 days
prior to the issuance of the demand notice intimated the approval/sanction of the
proposal for Holding Back Operations for the sole motive of recovery of the Loan
Outstanding. The Holding Back Operations had been
approved/allowed/permitted by the Bank vide HLCC no. 30 dated 30/01/2016
whereby a 5% cutback in the bank account of the applicant no 1 was allowed, by
restructuring plan is finalised or such other date as advised by the sanctioning
authority. However the Respondent Bank during the tenure of the Holding Back
Operations System has initiated the SARFAESI Proceedings. That as such the
present proceedings are not as per law and the objective, intent and provisions of
the SARFAESI Act and are as such liable to be set aside at the threshold itself.
C. Because on account of the approval of the above mentioned Holding Back
Operation by the Bank vide the Respondent Bank's HLCC no. 30 dated
30/01/2016 (till such time that the Loans of the Applicant no. 1 had been
restructured), the Loan Accounts had no longer been in default since the Holding
Back Operations was being duly acted upon and the Respondent bank was
taking due benefit of the same. That as such any action of the Respondent Bank
under the SARFAESI Act are completely contrary to the principles of natural
justice, doctrine of estoppel and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act itself.
D. Because it is the intention, object and motive of the Recovery Of Debts Due To
Banks And Institutions Act and also the SARFAESI Act that the dues of the Banks
should be recovered and genuine reasons and cases and viable projects should
not be strangled on account of genuine delay/default in repayment of the Banks
dues. However in the present case the completely viable business project (which
has been in business for the past 29 years) would be completely strangled. The
empanelled Chartered Accountants of the Respondent Bank have carried out an
extensive TEV / Business Project Feasibility report which has undisputedly
concluded that the Business Project of the Applicant no. 1 is Technically,
Economically and Financially viable in the long run". That as such the
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in the present Case are completely
contrary to the spirit, objective and intent of the SARFAESI Act. That as such the
present proceedings of the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act are liable
to be dismissed/set aside/quashed at the threshold.
E. Because the process for recovery of the Bank's dues is already under process by
means of the Holding Back Operations and as such the dues of the Respondent
Bank can be recovered effectively and properly by means of the Holding Back
Operations. The dues of the Respondent Bank can only be effectively recovered
by means of restructuring and private sale of the mortgaged properties (with only
part of the Rohtak Road Property). Thus the present proceedings of the
Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act are liable to be dismissed/set
aside/quashed at the threshold.
F. Because the Respondent Bank has without dismissed the OTS proposal of the
applicant no. 1 without following the prescribed procedure of the Bank and
without even giving any consideration to the same.

G. Because the Authorized Officer of the respondent bank who has purportedly
issued the notice under the SARFESI Act has no authority from the respondent
bank to issue the same. That it is pertinent to mention herein that no where it is
mentioned on the face of the said notice that who has authorized the said officer /
representative of the respondent bank to issue the said notice which is infact a
mandatory requirement under the SARFESI Act and hence the proceedings
initiated by the respondent bank are liable to be dismissed and rejected.
H. That it is further submitted herein that the respondent bank even failed to convey
to the applicants about the revision in the interest rate to be charged from the
applicants. The respondent bank had itself had agreed that it would charge
interest rate at a lower rate, whereas in gross violation of their own terms and
conditions of the sanction letter dated 26/06/2015 with respect to the interest to
be charged by the respondent bank, the respondent bank has charged interest at
a higher rate, which is highly exorbitant and uncalled-for and as such there was a
substantial increase in the total outstanding of the loan facility availed by the
applicants which is against the policy of natural justice and hence the
proceedings undertaken by the respondent bank under the SARFESI Act are
grossly not maintainable in the eyes of law.
I. That it is pertinent to mention herein that the respondent bank has overlooked
the fact that prior to the process of restructuring of the loan a Total Enterprise
Valuation (TEV) has to be conducted. That it is underlined herein that in the case
in the restructuring was done on the basis of the good conduct, honouring of
commitments by the applicant no. 1 and further on the basis of the TEV report
which also reflects the status of the business of the applicant no. 1 and further
states the fact that the business of the applicant no. 1 has good prospects and
the same could be revived over a period of time. That keeping in view the
aforementioned facts, the proceedings under the SARFESI Act are completely
uncalled-for and not required.

J. That further the respondent bank also failed to appreciate and consider the fact
that the applicant no. 1 themselves proposed for a 5% cut back from all the
amounts / monies credited in the newly opened current account of the applicant
no. 1 with the respondent bank which was opened in furtherance of the Holding
of operations of the applicant no. 1 and hence the classification of the accounts
of the applicant no. 1 into a Non Performing Asset are completely illegal, arbitrary
on the part of the respondent bank.
7. Interim Order, if prayed for
Pending final decision on the application, Applicant seeks issue of the following
interim order :-
1. This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to restrain the Respondent Bank
from taking any action under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002 against Applicant or the
subject properties being :-
ii. Commercial Office bearing no. DSM-229, DLF Towers, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi
iv. Commercial property at 23-B/6, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi 110005;
or in any manner interfering with the possession of the applicants over the
subject properties.
2. The respondent bank be restrained from taking any steps under the
SARFAESI Act against the above detailed mortgaged properties, during the
pendency of the present Application.
8. Matter pending with any other Court etc.
The Applicant declares that no such application or relief claimed under present
application have been filed by the Applicant in any court of law or

any other authority, Tribunal or any other bench of this Hon’ble Tribunal.
9. Particulars of Demand Draft/postal order in respect of the
application fee.
(a) Name of the Bank on which same is drawn :- Axis Bank

(b) Demand Draft No. :- 005650
(c) Date of issue :- 08/06/2016
(d) Amount in Rupees. :- Rs. 1,00,000/-
10. Documents in copies is stated in stage of documents which includes

as per list of enclosure
APPLICANTS
THOROUGH
SETHI & ASSOCIATES
DATED : 10/06/2016 ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANT,
NEW DELHI.
VERIFICATION
I, the above named applicants, being the Applicant hereby solemnly verify the
content of the para 1 to ______ of the application are true and correct to my
knowledge, belief and I have not suppressed any material information.
Verified at New Delhi on this 10th day of June 2016.
APPLICANTS
S A No. ____________ 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
AFFIDAVIT
I, Rajeev Paul Singh Verma, authorized signatory of M/s Lalsons Jewellers, aged about
________ years having office at 23-B/6, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi herein do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1. That I am one of the applicant and am well aware and conversant with the facts
of the case and competent to swear this affidavit and am well aware and conver-
sant with the facts of the case and to sign and verify the accompanying Applica-
tion.
2. That the contents/averments made in the accompanying Application, are true and
correct to my knowledge, and I am thus competent to verify the facts.
3. That the legal averments made in the application, are based on legal advice re-
ceived and believed to be true.
4. That the accompanying application has been prepared by our counsels under my
instructions. I have read & understood the contents of the same and the contents
thereof are true and correct. The contents of the same may be read as part and
parcel of this affidavit and are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION: Verified at Delhi on this ____ day of June 2016, that the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false & nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
S A No. ____________ 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
I, Kesho Ram Verma, aged about ________ years having office at A-3/171, Paschim
Vihar, New Delhi herein do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1. That I am one of the applicants and am well aware and conversant with the facts
tion.
DEPONENT
DEPONENT
S A No. ____________ 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
I, Raj Dulari Verma, aged about ________ years resident of at A-3/171, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi herein do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
tion.
DEPONENT
DEPONENT
S A No. ____________ 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
I, Rajeev Paul Singh Verma, aged about ________ years having office at A-3/171,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi herein do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
tion.
DEPONENT
DEPONENT
S A No. ____________ 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
I, Rajeev Paul Singh Verma, authorized signatory of R Malik & Company Pvt. Ltd, aged
about ________ years having office at A-3/171, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi herein do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
tion.
DEPONENT
DEPONENT
S A No. ____________ 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
KNOW ALL to whom these presents shall come that I, Rajeev Paul Singh Verma, autho-
rized signatory of R Malik & Company Pvt. Ltd. Applicant in the matter mention herein
above, do hereby appoint :
SETHI & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES:- Vidur Sikka(D-1036/02), Ashwani Kumar (D-

2919/08), Richita Garg (d 3859/10), Ashutosh Kumar (D 3527/14), Bhaskar Kumar
Shukla (D3990/12), Devendra Kejariwal (D 4777A/10) F-18, L.G.F., Lajpat Nagar-III,
New Delhi-110 024 (hereinafter called the Advocate(s) to be my/our Advocate in the
above-noted case and authorise them:-
 To act, appear and plead in the above-noted case in this Court or in any other Court in which the same may be tried or
heard and also in the appellate Court including High Court subject to payment of fees separately for each court by me/us.
 To sign, file, verify and present pleadings, complaints, appeals cross-objections or petitions for executions review, revision,
withdraw, compromise or other petitions or affidavits or other documents as may be deemed necessary or proper for the pros-
ecution of the said case in all its stages subject to payment of fees for each stage.
 To file and take back documents for admit and/or deny the documents of opposite party. To withdraw or compromise the
said case or submit to arbitration any difference or disputes that may arise touching or in any manner relating to the said case.
 To take/file execution proceedings.
 To deposit, withdraw and receive money, cheques, cash and grant receipts thereof and to do all other acts and things
which may be necessary to be done for the progress and in the course of the prosecution of the said case.
 To appoint and instruct any other Legal Practitoner authorising him to exercise the power and authority hereby conferred
upon the Advocate whenever he may think fit to do so and to sign. The power of attorney on my/our behalf.
 And/I/We undersigned do hereby agree to ratify and confirm all acts done by the Advocate or his substitute in the matter
as my/our own acts, as if done by me/us to all intents & purposes.
 And I/We undertake that I/We or my/our duly authorised agent would appear in Court on all hearings and will inform the
Advocate for appearance when the case is called.
 And I/We undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the advocate or his substitute responsible for the result of the said
case. The adjournment costs whenever ordered by the Court shall be of the Advocate which he shall receive and retain for
himself.
 And I/We the undersigned do hereby agree that in the event of the whole or part of the fee agreed by me/us to be paid to
the advocate remaining unpaid, he shall be entitled to withdraw from the prosecution of the said case until the same is paid up.
The fee settled is only for the above case and above Court for a period of one year only I/We hereby agree that once the fees
is paid. I/We will not be entitled for the refund of the same in any case.
 And I/We the undersigned do hereby agree that in the event of the advocate withdrawing from the case at any stage the
fees already paid shall not be refunded. And in case the case is dismissed for any reason whatsoever including any default of
the counsel including non-appearance we shall not hold the advocate responsible for the same. Further, all misc. expenses for
the prosecution of the case including court fees, process fee etc shall be borne by us and if the same are borne by the advo-
cate we shall reimburse the same.
 And I/we the undersigned do hereby agree that I/we shall not claim any compensation, nor the Advocate/shall be liable
for any compensation if he/she fails to appear in the court or fails to conduct or withdraws from the case due to non-payment of
fee as per settlement or for reason of any request/call given by Bar Association/s or Council/s.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I/we do hereunto set my/our hand to these presents the contents of which been understood by me/us on
this ____________ day of June, 2016.
Accepted subject to the terms of the fees.
Advocate Client
S A No. ____________ 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Sl.No Particulars Page No

1 Possession Notices all dated 27.04.2016 with respect to
three properties.
2 Requisition letter sent by applicant no. 1 to the
respondent bank dated 12.03.2015.
3 TEV Study report sent by the respondent bank dated
19.03.2015.
4 Requisition letter sent by applicant no. 1 to the
respondent bank dated 25.05.2015 for restructuring of
debt.
5 Sanction / Renewal letter with respect to the credit
facilities sent by the respondent bank dated 26.06.2015.
6 Representation letter sent by the applicant no. 1 dated
08.07.2015.
7 Representation letter sent by the respondent bank to
ECGC Ltd. dated 27.07.2015.
8 Communication dated 03.08.2015 sent by the applicant
no. 1.
9 Communication dated 05.08.2015 sent by the
respondent bank.
10 Email communication dated 06.08.2015 sent to the
respondent bank by the applicant no. 1.
11 Reply sent by respondent bank dated 11.08.2015 to the
communication dated 05.08.2015.
respondent bank by the applicant no. 1
13 Reply sent by respondent bank dated 25.08.2015 to the
applicant no. 1.
14 Communication letters dated 03.09.2015 sent by the
respondent bank.
12.10.2015 in reply to the letter dated 03.09.2015 sent
by the respondent bank.
respondent bank by the applicant no. 1 requesting refund
of excess interest.
29.11.2015 requesting for regularization of account.
18 Communication letters dated 03.12.2015 sent by the
respondent bank.
19 Communication letter dated 01.01.2016 sent by the
respondent bank for recalling of advance facilities.
06.01.2016 in reply to the communication letter dated
01.01.2016.
21 Representation / Proposal letter sent and email by the
applicant no. 1 dated 16.01.2016 in furtherance to the
communication letter dated 06.01.2016.
respondent bank by the applicant no. 1 for demanding
refund of amount.
respondent bank for Holding on operations.
respondent bank.
25 Recall notice under section 13(2), SARFAESI Act sent by
the respondent bank dated 15.02.2016.
26 Representation / Proposal letter sent by the applicant no.
1 dated 24.02.2016 in furtherance to the communication
letter dated 09.02.2016.
respondent bank by the applicant no. 1 for allowing
Holding of operations.
respondent bank for assignment of debts to ARC’s.
1 dated 26.02.2016 in reply to the letters dated
15.02.2016 and 26.02.2016.
04.03.2016 in reply to the letter dated 26.02.2016.
31 Request letter date 08.03.2016 sent by the applicant no.
1 to the respondent bank for issuance of cheque book.
Reply letter dated 09.03.2016 to the request letter dated
32 08.03.2016 sent by the respondent bank for issuing and
intimating issuance of new cheque book.
33 Request letter sent by applicant no. 1 to the respondent
bank dated 10.03.2016 for restructuring of debt.
bank dated 14.03.2016 for Holding of operations and
consideration of restructure proposal.
16.03.2016 informing the respondent bank about the
nationwide ongoing strike.
bank dated 16.03.2016 for Holding of operations and
consideration of restructure proposal.
closure of current account maintained with Axis Bank Ltd.
& transfer of entire funds.
38 Letter dated 07.04.2016 received by the applicant no. 1
sent by the Registrar, BIFR, New Delhi.
39 Reply / Objection letter dated 15.04.2016 to the notice
under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act sent by the
applicant no. 1 to the respondent bank.
letter dated 07.04.2016 sent by the Registrar BIFR, New
Delhi.
1 dated 02.05.2016 to the respondent bank offering One
time settlement and filling of ECGC Claim.
42 Reply letter sent by the respondent bank dated
03.05.2016 to the applicant no. 1 in response to the One
time settlement proposal.
1 dated 09.05.2016 to the respondent bank offering One
time settlement and filling of ECGC Claim
44 Any additions document(s) which may be permitted by
this Hon’ble Tribunal.
APPLICANT
SETHI & ASSOCIATES

NEW DELHI.
S A No. ____________ 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
Date Particulars
Applicant availed credit facilities from the Respondent
bank
15.02.2016. Possession notice was issued under section 13(2),

SARFAESI Act by the respondent bank to the applicant
for taking possession of the alleged secured asset
Hence the present securitization appeal
APPLICANT
SETHI & ASSOCIATES

NEW DELHI.

Lalsons vs. OBC DRT SARFAESI APPEAL DRT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lalsons vs. OBC DRT SARFAESI APPEAL DRT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- III, NEW DELHI

S A No. ____________ 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S LALSONS JEWELLERS LTD. & ORS …APPLICANTS

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE …DEFENDANTS

Sl.No Particulars Page No

2 List of Dates and events.

3 Appeal Under Section 17 (1)Of The SARFAESI Act, 2002

4 List of Documents alongwith documents.

SETHI & ASSOCIATES

S A No. ____________ 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S LALSONS JEWELLERS LTD. & ORS …APPLICANTS

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE …DEFENDANTS

1. M/S LALSONS JEWELLERS LTD.

2. MR. KESHO RAM VERMA

3. MRS. RAJ DULARI VERMA

4. MR. RAJEEV PAUL SINGH VERMA.

5. M/s R MALIK & COMPANY PVT. LTD.

A-3/171, PASCHIM VIHAR,

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

SETHI & ASSOCIATES

S A No. ____________ 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S LALSONS JEWELLERS LTD. & ORS …APPLICANTS

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE …DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION/APPEAL UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 17 OF THE

1. Particulars of the applicants:

(a) Particulars of the applicant no. 1.

(i) Name of applicant no. 1 M/S LALSONS JEWELLERS LTD.

(ii) Address of the registered office. 23-B/6, NEW ROHTAK ROAD,

(b) Particulars of the applicant no. 2.

(i) Name of applicant no. 2 MR. KESHO RAM VERMA.

(ii) Registered office address NOT APPLICABLE.

(iii) Address for service of notice A-3/171, PASCHIM VIHAR,

(c) Particulars of applicant no. 3.

(i) Name of applicant no. 3 MRS. RAJ DULARI VERMA

(ii) Address of the registered office. NOT APPLICABLE.

(d) Particulars of applicant no. 4.

i) Name of applicant no. 4 MR. RAJEEV PAUL SINGH VERMA.

(ii) Address of the registered office. NOT APPLICABLE.

(iii) Address for service of all notices. A-3/171, PASCHIM VIHAR,

(e) Particulars of applicant no. 5.

i) Name of applicant no. 5 R MALIK & COMPANY PVT. LTD.

(ii) Address of the registered office. A-3/171, PASCHIM VIHAR,

(iii) Address for service of all notices. A-3/171, PASCHIM VIHAR,

2. Details of the defendant.

(i) Name of the defendant ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

(ii) Address of the corporate office. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

(iii) Address service of all notices. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

affixed only on 27th April 2016 at the Mortgaged Properties.

(5) Facts of the case.

Facts of the case are mentioned as below :-

(including precious stone studded jewellery). The applicant no 1 has a retail

applicant no 1 is situated in the same premises/building.

modernisation and the changing times, Lalsons Jewelers transformed to machine

business of retail, wholesale and export of jewellery.

Ministry of commerce and industry. Further the applicant no 1 and its

management have an extensive experience in the development of its product

internationally. Further the Applicant no 1 was a major exporter of Jewelry to

Foreign Countries including Dubai.

fulfilling all of its obligations.