GANGAVATHI SUGARS LTD Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(DR)-2003-2-8
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 04,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.Subbulakshmy, - (1.)THE Bank filed IA-3/2002 before the DRT, Bangalore, for directing the 1st defendant to deposit 50% of the sale proceeds of the sugar and molasses to the applicant. THE Tribunal by its order dated 16.5.2002 allowed the application by directing the appellant to deposit 30% of the sale proceeds to the applicant Bank.
(2.)Counsel for the appellant submits that even 30% of the sale proceeds cannot be deposited to the Bank since the appellant has to incur statutory liability by paying taxes, wages to workers and payment to cane growers and even the sale proceeds would not be sufficient to meet those expenses and so the order passed by the PO, DRT, has to be set aside. He further submitted that the respondent Bank filed the petition for deposit of 50% of the sale proceeds of the sugar under Section 19(12) of the RDDB & FI Act and the petition itself is not maintainable under that section. Section 19(12) reads as follows:
"The Tribunal may make an interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay or attachment) against the defendant to debar him from transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with, or disposing of, any property and assets belonging to him without the prior permission of the Tribunal."

The respondent Bank sought for only interim order before the Tribunal under Section 19(12). The respondent Bank prayed for directing the 1st defendant to deposit 50% of the sale proceeds of sugar and molasses to the applicant Bank.

Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that no attachment was sought for and only direction to deposit 50% of the sale proceeds has been sought for and the petition under Section 19(12) is maintainable. The respondent Bank has sought for only interim order directing the 1st defendant to deposit 50% of the sale proceeds. Section 19(12) is the section provided under the Act empowering the Tribunal to pass interim orders. The Bank sought for only interim order under Section 19(12). Even though the specific word 'Injunction' or 'Attachment' is not mentioned in the petition, direction has been sought for deposit of the sale proceeds. Such interim direction can be sought for by filing petition under Section 19(12) only. The specific non-mentioning of the word 'Injunction' or 'Attachment' in the petition cannot take away the right of the respondent Bank for seeking their relief of interim order under Section 19(12) based on the mere technicality. What has been sought for in the application is an interim order. Such interim order can be passed under Section 19(12) and the Bank is entitled to file such petition under Section 19(12) of the Act.

(3.)UNDER Section 19(20) of the Act, the Tribunal may after giving the applicant and the defendant an opportunity of being heard, pass such interim or final order, including the order for payment of interest from the date on or before which payment of the amount is found due up to the date of realisation or actual payment, on the application as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal is empowered to pass such interim or final order after giving opportunity to both the parties as it deems fit to meet the ends of justice. UNDER the provisions of the RDDB & FI Act, the DRT has passed interim order. So, it cannot be stated that the petition itself is not maintainable. The petition filed by the applicant Bank is maintainable.


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