- (1.) The Court: The appeal is treated as on today's list. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a).
(2.) This is an appeal directed against an order of the learned single Judge of the writ court passed upon a writ application, preferred by the present appellants. The order is dated 29th November, 1996 and by the said order the learned single Judge disposed of the writ application by granting opportunity to the parties to mention before the appropriate court for expeditious disposal of an alleged execution case or for sale of the property, as proposed by the company, for the purpose of liquidating the dues of the Bank under the decree.
(3.) The admitted position is that there was a consent decree, passed in a suit, instituted by Mr. Jayanta Banerjee's client, the Bank, against Mr. P.C. Seri s clients and in that consent decree, a Receiver was appointed for certain purposes but such consent decree, admittedly, had not been put Into execution and as such there was no existence of any execution case arising out of the said decree. Notwithstanding such factual position, the learned trial Judge proceeded upon a misconceived premise about the existence of such an execution case. Secondly, the other error, on the part of the learned trial Judge, which crept in was a wrong assumption that the direction of the appellate authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction was for framing of a scheme, which actually was a direction for winding up of the company. On the basis of such direction a winding up proceeding was also started, which ended against the appellants and from such an order of the winding up, an appeal is pending before the appropriate appeal court. The learned trial Judge, in passing the said order, appears to have intended to dispose of the writ application, overlooking that the decision therein will finalise the recommendation for winding up in question with its consequential bearing on the decision in the proceeding, pending before the Company Appeal Court.;