ARUN R. FREDRICK Vs. CANARA BANK
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Arun R. Fredrick and Anr.
Canara Bank and Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
Pratibha Upasani, J. -
(1.) MR . C.R. Prasanan, Advocate for the appellants is present, Mr. K.S.V. Prasad, Advocate for the 1st respondent Bank is present. Mr. Vijaya Kumar representing Advocate Mr. Srinath Sridevan for the 2nd and 3rd respondents is present. Mr. Dhanaraj representing Advocate Mr. R. Murari for 4th respondent is present.
(2.) HEARD , Perused the proceedings. These appeals are filed by the appellants/original defendants D3 Mr. Arun. R. Fredrick, Managing Director and D5 Mrs. Minnie R. Fredrick, Director of the 2nd respondent company being aggrieved by the Common Order dated 2.7.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT -I, Chennai in IA 530/2002, IA 531/2002 and IA 532/2002 in OA 17/1996. By the impugned common order, the learned Presiding Officer, DRT rejected all the three applications made by the appellants wherein prayers like giving direction to the Registrar of Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee, issuance of injunction order against co -defendants and co -directors, and appointment of Receiver with respect to the co -defendant's property were made and the same were refused by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such applications. Conclusive finding to this effect has been given holding that the appellants have no jurisdiction to file these IAs before the Tribunal as the Tribunal lacks subject -wise jurisdiction to decide or adjudicate the inter se dispute between the defendants. Giving this reason, the applications came to be dismissed. Hence these appeals.
(3.) I have heard all the sides. I have also perused the proceedings and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer, DRT has not committed any error. The prayers in the three applications are indeed very peculiar. In one such application, prayer is made that the co -defendants be restrained from alienating the valuable brands and assets of the 2nd respondent company. Another prayer is that the Tribunal should give instructions to the Registrar of Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee not to issue duplicate Registration Certificate to R3 Mr. S. James Fredrick and R4 Mr. Anand R. Fredrick who are the co -defendants, one being Chairman and the other being one of the Directors of original defendant No. 1 company M/s Coromandel Indaq Products India Limited. The 3rd prayer is that Receiver be appointed with respect to the property mentioned in the schedule, which appears to be a property belonging to 1st defendant company. These prayers are rightly rejected by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.