Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated September 18, 2007 (Ganapati Commerce Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, [2007] 140 Comp Cas 916 (Cal)), passed by the hon'ble company judge whereby his Lordship was pleased to hold that the official liquidator need not transmit the sale proceeds held by him to the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal -II , New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") and his Lordship further held that it would be open to such Recovery Officer to apply under Section 28(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), if it deems fit.
(2.) THE facts revealed from the case that three companies, viz., Ganapati Exports Ltd., Ganapati Combines Ltd., and Ganapati Commerce Ltd. (in liquidation) were wound up by virtue of an order passed by the hon'ble High Court. The only question arose in this matter is that the primacy of the said Act of 1993 over the company court's jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by the recovery officer under the said Act. It is to be noted that the appeals have been filed by the secured creditor Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the bank") and at the instance of the said companies, they were directed to be wound up. It further appears that the bank is a secured creditor of the said three companies of Ganapati group (in liquidation) and at the behest of the bank, the said companies were wound up. The assets of the said three companies (in liquidation) were sold off by the official liquidator pursuant to the order so passed by the hon'ble court. The sale proceeds are in the hands of the official liquidator for the ascertainment of the creditor's dues and also for determination of the priorities in terms of Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. It further appears that the recovery officer directed the official liquidator to transmit the sale proceeds lying in the hand of the official liquidator to the recovery officer of the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal.
(3.) FURTHERMORE , it is the case of the bank that the Tribunal has primacy over the said matters by virtue of the provisions of the said Act. It is the duty of the official liquidator to assist the Tribunal in the matter of disbursement also. It is further contended before us that the company court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, even in the case of a company wound up by an order of the company court. It is further submitted that the application which has been filed by the official liquidator before the hon'ble company court, inter alia, praying for an order, the learned recovery officer dismissed the objections taken by the official liquidator in its report upholding the exclusivity issues of the Act of 1993 and directed to deposit all proceeds to the Debts Recovery Tribunal -II, New Delhi, on January 10, 2006 in R.C. Case No. 144 of 2001.;