MONTARI INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-bank") has filed O. A. No. 31 of 2003 against the appellant-M/s. Montari Industries Limited (the first defendant, and hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-defendant") and others for the recovery of Rs. 17,47,21,665.73 with interest and costs before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT"). THE appellant-defendant filed an application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "SICA"), read with rule 18 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, for stay of proceedings before the DRT in view of the pendency of the appeal before the AAIFR. In that application it was averred that the BIFR by order dated August 1, 1997, declared the appellant-defendant as a sick industrial unit, appointed an operating agency to work out a rehabilitation scheme, but by order dated January 9, 2003, directed that the appellant-defendant be wound up. It was also averred that the appellant-defendant has preferred an appeal against the said order of the BIFR, and that the AAIFR has registered the same as Appeal No. 137 of 2003 on May 14, 2003. It was, therefore, urged that the proceedings against the defendants in the O. A. cannot be proceeded with except with the permission of the AAIFR.
(2.) This application of the appellant-defendant was opposed by the respondent-bank. The learned presiding officer of the DRT, by order dated October 30, 2003, declined the request of the appellant-defendant to stay the proceedings.
Aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal. The respondent-bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the same.
(3.) I have heard counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.