STERLING COMPUTERS LIMITED Vs. CORPORATION BANK
LAWS(DR)-2003-4-9
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on April 16,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)CORPORATION Bank (hereinbefore referred to as 'the 1st respondent-Bank') filed Suit No. 2731/1993 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against (1) M/s. United Data Base (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the UDP'); (2) M/s. United India Periodicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the UIP')"; (3) T.P. Ahmed Ali; (4) M/s. Sterling Computers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-Sterling Computers); (5) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the MTNL'); (6) Central Bank of India; (7) Bank of Baroda; and (8) Bank of India. The suit was filed for the recovery of Rs. 7,53,09,020.83 with interest @ 21% per annum, out of which the liability of the appellant-Sterling Computers was limited to Rs. 4,09,76,270/- with interest as mentioned above. After the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force, the suit was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') and was taken on file as O.A. 399/95. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, accordingly, passed the final order with costs in favour of the 1st respondent-Bank by his order dated 11.3.2002.
(2.)Aggrieved, the appellant-Sterling Computers has filed the appeal, and also this application under Section 21 of the Act for waiver of the pre-deposit. The 1st respondent-Bank has filed a common reply to the appeal as well as to the application opposing the same. The 7th respondent-Bank of Baroda has also filed a reply. The 4th respondent remains ex parts while the other respondents 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 have not filed any reply.
I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.

(3.)ON 14.3.87, UIP entered into a contract with MTNL for printing and publishing Telephone Directories with Yellow Pages for the cities of Delhi and Bombay. With the consent of MTNL, UIP assigned the work, and the benefits of the contract to the UDI. UDI is a subsidiary company of the UIP. For the purpose of executing the work, UDI borrowed moneys and availed credit facilities from the 1st respondent-Bank and Bank of India. But, the printing and publishing of Telephone Directories were not carried out in time, and in terms Of the contract. Therefore, the 1st respondent-Bank filed Company Petitions 152and 153/90 while Bank of India filed Company Petitions 118 and 119/90 for winding-up UIP and UDI.


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