I C I C I BANK LIMITED Vs. DAEWOO MOTORS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants ICICI Bank Limited being aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Mumbai on Exhibit 17 in the Original Application No. 162 of 2002. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding officer rejected the application made by the applicant Bank wherein two fold prayers were made. The first prayer was for giving direction to the receiver who has been already appointed by the DRT to sell property mentioned in Exhibits A, B and C to the original application by public auction, by private treaty or otherwise and the second prayer in the alternative, was that the order dated 9.5.2002 passed by the DRT-III, Mumbai, directing payment of royalty of Rs. 10 lacs after every quarter be modified and royalty amount be enhanced to Rs. 15 crores per month. The learned Presiding Officer, however, by the impugned order, rejected both the prayers.

(2.) Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows:

(3.) IN the present case at hand, it can be seen that a situation has arisen where a huge liability is owed by the respondent No. 1, not only to the applicant Bank but also to other financial institutions. IN fact, when this matter was being heard, all the respondents were served and the respondent No. 3 INdustrial Development Bank of INdia, the respondent No. 5 State Bank of INdia, the respondent No. 6 Canara Bank and the respondent No. 8 State Sank of Patiala were present and they totally supported the application for sale of the assets of the respondent No. 1 made by the applicant Bank namely LC.I.C.I Bank Ltd. Other respondents were also duly served but were not present. The respondent No. 4. The Export Import Bank of INdia, I was told, has filed separate original application in the Debts Recovery Triburial, Delhi, which is pending. IN short, there is no opposition from any of the respondents for the reliefs sought by the applicant Bank.