SITARAM SINGHANIA Vs. ICICI LTD
LAWS(DR)-2003-7-12
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 22,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)OFFICE note indicates that the reply to Miscellaneous Application 86/2001 has not been filed. Mr. Rajesh Malhotra states that he has filed the reply to the main appeal.
(2.)The learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant states that in view of the legal position as it stands today, notice to the respondents other than respondents 1 and 6 be dispensed with, inasmuch as the applicant/appellant have to seek appropriate remedy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Notice to the other respondents is accordingly dispensed with.
I have heard the Counsel for the applicant/appellant and respondents 1 and 6.

(3.)THE learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant states that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that no permission was necessary from the Company Court for initiating proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He contends that the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Court in a Division Bench judgment reported in Pennar Peterson Limited v. State Bank of Hyderabad and Ors., I (2002) BC 25 (DB)=2001 (Vol. 106) Company Cases page 338, had made a distinction between the case where a Company is not wound-up and the proceedings for winding-up are pending, and the case where the Company stands wound up already. He contends that the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the permission of the Company Court to initiate proceedings before the DRT would be necessary where the Company had already been wound-up. THE learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant states that in this case, the Company has already been wound-up. But learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant fairly points out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Hyderabad v. Pennar Peterson, 2003 (Vol. 114) Company Cases page 66, has overruled the above said decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. He also points out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the above said decision, 2003 (Vol. 114) Company Cases page 66, has also observed that the decision in Allahabad Bank's case that no leave of the Company Court is necessary may need re-consideration. He, therefore, points out that the applicant/appellant will be taking appropriate steps before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for appropriate remedy.


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