Decided on March 12,2003



K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)THIS is an appeal by defendants 1 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants/defendants') in O.A. 94/2001 filed by the 1st respondent-Industrial Investment Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Bank) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the DRT) for the recovery of Rs. 1,37,97,204/- with subsequent interest and costs.
(2.)On 25.4.2001, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT directed issue of show-cause notices on the O.A. to the defendants and also granted an ad interim ex pane injunction restraining the appellant/1st defendant and its Directors from selling, transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the mortgaged immovable properties of the 1st defendant company with all buildings, structures, plants and machinery.
The 1st respondent-Bank m(SIC)ed an application and LA. 296/2001 in September, 2000, stating, among other things, that consortium loan granted to the appellant/1st defendant was Rs. 10 crores, that on 25.4.2001, the DRT had granted the injunction and had also appointed a Commissioner to take an inventory who visited the factory premises of the appellant/1st defendant on 11.7.2001, and submitted a report, that the report showed that a portion of the mortgaged factory together with a spinning plant had been leased out by the appellant/1st defendant to M/s. Hindustan Polyster Lines (P.) Ltd., that the same had been done without the prior permission of the financial institutions, that the lease had been given for a period of three years, and that the lease rental is being usurped by Rajiv Aggarwal, to the exclusion of the financial institutions who are entitled to receive the rent, and appropriate the same towards the outstandings. The respondent-Bank prayed for summoning the appellant/1st defendant and/or Rajiv Aggarwal as also the lessee M/s. Hindustan Polyster Lines (P.) Ltd. for disclosing the details of the lease including the rent, and to whom the same is paid. The respondent/plaintiff also prayed that the lessee should be directed to pay the rent to it every month with liberty to keep the same in separate account.

(3.)THE appellant/1st defendant filed a reply opposing this application mainly raising a preliminary objection that the O.A. 94/2001 as well as LA. 296/2001 were not maintainable being violative of Rule 9 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), which provides, among other things, that all the documents relied upon by the applicant-Bank, and those mentioned in the application shall be filed along with the O.A., but, urged that the respondent-Bank had not annexed relevant documents. THE appellant 1st defendant also urged that the lease was prior to the order of injunction passed by the DRT.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.