N KRISHNADOSS Vs. BANK OF MADURA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent applicant Bank filed IA-944/1999 in OA-79/1997 seeking for interim Recovery Certificate in terms of the admission of amount by the defendants 1 to 4 in their reply statement. THE Presiding Officer, DRT-1, found that in the reply statement filed by the defendants 1 to 4, they have agreed and admitted to pay Rs. 7.72 lakhs. So to the extent of the admitted liability the PO, DRT, has passed the Order. It is seen from the Order that during the pendency of the application the defendants filed another application in IA-1358/2001 for re-opening the IA-944/99 and also filed other IAs with regard to the maintainability of the OA and the PO, DRT, passed order as follows:

(2.) Aggrieved against that Order the appellant has come forward with this appeal. The appellant contends that DRT-1 erred in passing the interim order by mainly relying upon the Reply statement filed by the respondents 1 to 4 in the OA. It has further been contended in the appeal that the application itself is not maintainable since the applicant Bank of Madura has been merged with ICICI Bank and the main OA filed by Bank of Madura itself is not maintainable and after amalgamation only the ICICI Bank has got the right to continue the suit and the applicant Bank is not entitled to continue the OA since the Bank of Madura ceased to exist with effect from 10.3.2001.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that in the Scheme of Amalgamation under Clause 8 on and from the effective date, all suits, actions and proceedings of whatsoever nature by or against the transferor Bank pending and/or arising on or before the effective date shall be continued and will be enforced by or against the transferee Bank as if the same had been filed by or against the transferee Bank and so the present petition is maintainable. Clause 8 reads as follows-