INDIAN BANK Vs. GLOBAL CEMENTS LIMITED
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS Tribunal has heard, at the mentioning stage, the different Counsels, appearing for the different parties, out of which are the Porbandar Cement Workers' Union and the Kistna Cement Retired Workers' Union. Such hearing has been conducted by this Tribunal in relation to one compromise petition jointly filed by both the applicant Bank and the other twenty-one defendants. The said joint application has been preferred before this Tribunal under the provisions of Order XXIII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908). The said application has been preferred jointly by both the applicant Bank and the defendants with the object of bringing an end to the pending judicial proceeding in which the applicant Bank has preferred one application under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. (Act No. LI of 1993) and against those compromising twenty-one defendants. The said application has been preferred by the applicant Bank as a specified class of litigants on July 2, 1998 before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata for the issuance of a Certificate of Recovery for a sum of Rs. 34,26,33,954.17 P. against the defendant Nos. 1 to 21.
(2.) The day's application has been preferred by both the applicant Bank and those twenty-one defendants. It is true to fact that the joint compromise application shall, after its presentation, confer a jurisdiction of the limited nature upon a Court or an adjudicating body. Furthermore, besides recording the terms and conditions agreed to be entered into between the compromising parties, the Court or an adjudicating body shall have nothing to do or to deal with, but Rule 3 of Order XXIII also confers upon or vests the jurisdiction in the said Court or the said body to record the agreed terms and conditions and to see whether the agreed terms and conditions have been entered into between those compromising parties in complete compliance with the relevant provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act No. IX of 1872). So far as Rule 3 of Order XXIII of the said Code is concerned, this Tribunal is finding nothing, as a result of which it may be enabled to presume that the agreed terms and conditions as expressly incorporated in paragraph No. 4 (pages 3 to 7) of the said joint petition have been voluntarily and freely entered; those are not the resultant of anything contrary or repugnant to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act No. IX of 1872).
In such situation, it may be safely held that the applicant Bank (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) and the twenty-one defendants (hereinafter referred to as the debtors) are the free and independent contracting parties. Added to that, this Tribunal has also been directed by the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata in connection with one petition preferred by both the applicant Bank and the defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to dispose of the compromise application forthwith.
(3.) BUT when this Tribunal has been about to deal with the said application, the workmen and the other persons including the purchaser have come forward to raise their specific grievances as against the other compromising parties being no other than the defendant No. 1 and others.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.