SIMPLEX PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. YES BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya </DJG> 1. The petitioners and the opposite party no. 1 are represented through their learned counsel in Court today.

(2.) The present challenge is directed against an order, whereby the presiding officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata, directed the Registrar to issue notices to the companies on the submission of learned counsel for the applicant therein that the defendants enjoy the C.C. limits against Government and non Government book debts; those companies should be directed not to part with the payments somewhere else; rather companies be directed to render amounts which should be kept in separate "no lien interest bearing account with the bank."

(3.) Upon being confronted with the query from court as to whether any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be justified in view of availability of an alternative remedy by way of an appeal, learned counsel for the petitioners insists that the remedy of judicial review as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution ought to be exercised in this case in view of the palpable jurisdictional error committed by the tribunal in not assigning a single line of reason for passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the effect of the order would be disastrous since, pursuant to the said order, notices have been issued to the present petitioners and other defendants in the said proceeding, directing them not to part with the payments owned by them for the company and instead to render the amount in a separate no lien interest bearing account with the bank. It was further directed in the said notice that, in compliance of the order passed by the tribunal, which is impugned herein, they were directed to deposit all the money owed by them in the company (including the amount as reflecting in the stock statement of the company dated November 2, 2018) by way of a demand draft in favour of "YES Bank Limited" payable at Kolkata.