- (1.) BOTH the Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common judgment and order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ application upon rejecting the case made out by the appellants herein as the writ petitioner in the writ application regarding the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in passing orders after a winding up order has been passed and the Official Liquidator has been appointed in respect of the assets of the Company in liquidation. Taking note of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and Anr., AIR 2000 SC 1535, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no illegality and infirmity in the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal which was impugned in the writ application.
(2.) IN the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner, Mrs. Pal had initially urged that having regard to the fact that on the basis of the recommendations made by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), winding up order had been passed in respect of the Company in liquidation and the Official Liquidator had also been appointed, the Debts Recovery Tribunal ought not to have decreed the claim of the Bank without impleading the Official Liquidator in that proceeding and also having regard to the provisions of Sec. 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 . It was also Mrs. Pal 'sspecific case that the Recovery Officer who had been appointed in the proceeding before the Tribunal had erroneously appointed a Receiver when the Official Liquidator had already been appointed by this Court. While the appeal was pending, certain developments have taken place which has changed the complexion of the appeal. The decree of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna dated 1st February, 2000 has been challenged by the two Companies, namely, Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited and Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation, in two separate writ proceedings, namely C.W.J.C. No. 3510 of 2000 (P) and C.W.J.C. No. 8842 of 2000 (P), which were ultimately transferred to this Court, and were disposed of on 14th June, 2005 by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge set aside the decree dated 1st February, 2000, passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 2 of 1997, as also the order dated 7th February, 2000 passed by the said Tribunal, and the subsequent order passed by the Recovery Officer and remitted the case to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after impleading all necessary all necessary parties and upon notice to the defendants. The learned single Judge took particular care to indicate that before passing a final order, the Tribunal would bear in mind that the Official Liquidator had already been appointed by this Court in respect of the Company in liquidation.
(3.) HAVING regard to the said developments, the very cause of action for the writ petition filed by the appellant herein as also appeal has ceased to exist and the appeal has, therefore, been rendered infructuous.;