STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. BASTAR OIL MILLS AND INDUSTRIES LTD.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Bastar Oil Mills and Industries Ltd. and Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
K.S. Kumaran, J. -
(1.) APPELLANT State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant Bank') has filed original application No. 18/2004 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the DRT) against respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (as defendants) for the recovery of Rs. 7,28,27,297.23 with interest and costs.
(2.) THE appellant Bank also filed a miscellaneous application for the attachment of the amount due under the arbitration award passed in favour of the; defendant No. 1 company (and against the State of Chhattisgarh and the Principal Secretary, Department of Forests, Government of Chhattisgarh) on 7th November, 2003 for a sum of Rs. 6,06,10,4367 - with interest. The appellant Bank urged in that application that the defendant No. 1 company is likely to get the said award amount from the State of Chhattisgarh and Department of Forests, Government of Chhattisgarh, that the same can be attached, and that otherwise there are every chance of siphoning off the funds by the defendant No. 1 company for other purposes. The appellant Bank has further urged that if the said amount is not attached, it will be put to irreparable loss. The appellant Bank also prayed for a direction to the respondents in the arbitration proceedings (State of Chhattisgarh and Department of Forests, Government of Chhattisgarh) to send the amount to the DRT. As in seen from the impugned order, the respondent -defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not file any reply to this application for attachment, but they filed an application for vacating the ex pane interim order by which the State of Chhattisgarh and, Principal Secretary, Department of Forests, Government of Chhattisgarh were directed to maintain status quo in respect of award amount. It is also seen from the impugned order that the appellant Bank did not file any reply to this application filed by respondents defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It is further seen from the impugned order that by consent of parties arguments on both the applications, namely, for attachment and for vacating the ex parte interim order, were heard together by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed impugned order dated 12th March, 2004 observing that the award amount has not yet been received by the defendants and, therefore, it cannot be stated to be the property of the defendants in terms of Section 19(12) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Presiding Officer held that an interim order can be granted only in respect of assets and properties of the defendants as per the provisions of Section 19(12) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT dismissed the application for attachment filed by the appellant Bank, and vacated the ad interim order.
(3.) AGGRIEVED , the appellant Bank has preferred this appeal, and the respondent No, 1 defendant has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal. Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 did not file any reply, and the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 stated that they did not wish to file any reply on the merits of the appeal. He stated that they are unnecessary parties to the appeal, and that they were not parties before the DRT. The contention of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 is that the appeal is not maintainable.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.