- (1.) All the above six writ petitions arise out of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The cases with CWP Nos. 18635, 18678, 18639 of 2009 have been at the instance of the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (PSIDC) against the order of DRAT, while CWP No. 1521 of 2010 is at the instance of the State Bank of Patiala, CWP No. 1660 of 2010 is at the instance of the Canara Bank and CWP No. 1917 of 2010 is at the instance of State Bank of India.
(2.) The proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal arose initially arose out of the Banks resorting to actions before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for recovery of sums alleged to be due to them from the Company named M/s Northland Sugar Complex Limited (NSCL), now ordered to be wound up on the basis of loans obtained on the security of hypothecation of plant, machineries and the stocks of the Company. In the array of parties, along with the debtor Company, the Banks had also impleaded PSIDC on account of the fact that the latter had taken action against the Company under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation (SFC) Act, took possession of its assets and brought the land and machineries as well as the stocks, without reference to the claims of the Banks which held hypothecation of the stocks and plant and machineries. Through the proceedings before this Court, the amount realized by PSIDC had been deposited with the State Bank of Patiala and later partially distributed amongst the creditor-Banks in so far the sale proceeds were predicated towards the value of stocks. When the properties were sold pursuant to the action under Section 29 of the SCF Act, M/s Chadha Papers Limited were the successful purchasers and there had been independent proceedings that had gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the manner of realization of sale consideration finalized at the auction. Although the assets of the Company had been taken over by PSIDC on 17.07.1996, it had been sold only 15 months thereafter i.e. on 09.10.1997. Even the purchaser did not pay the entire amount immediately and they were concluded only by the intervention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. All the details of the amounts realized by PSIDC may not be necessary, since as a starting point for resolution of dispute between parties, it shall be possible to take the admitted amount of Rs. 21,26,15,094.78 plus further interest as lying with PSIDC as surplus after satisfaction of its own dues with interest and costs. The land, plant and machineries have all been sold as one lot and it has not been possible to predicate the exact amount that was realized towards the machineries which had been hypothecated to the Banks. However, in the proceedings before the DRAT, the point for consideration was only the liability of PSIDC for return of the surplus amount and the claims of the Banks.
(3.) While disposing of the appeals before the DRAT, the Tribunal had calculated the specific sums of money which were recoverable and had also provided for interest at 9% per annum as pendente lite interest and future interest till the recovery of the amount from PSIDC. The learned counsel for the PSIDC in the above three writ petitions would contend that the surplus amount had been deposited through FDR yielding lesser interest than 9% and, therefore, PSIDC cannot be made liable for any sum in excess of what it has realized by way of interest on the surplus amount. It is also contended that the Tribunal was in error in making PSIDC liable to pay to the Banks as per formula given in its order at para 53, wherein it had been observed that the interest would become payable from 09.10.1997 when the property was sold and whatever that remained beyond that period would be treated to be the surplus.;