BLUE BLENDS INDIA LTD Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 4.6.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai on Exh. No. 16 in Original Application No. 2518/2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer, directed to implement the order passed on 7.2.2001, which required the appellants to disclose their assets on affidavit, when the appellant No. 1 Company namely M/s. Blue Blends (India) Limited was before BIFR.

(2.) I have heard all the Advocates at length and also have gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my opinion, the learned Presiding Officer was not justified in directing the appellants to disclose their assets on oath, when the appellant No. 1 company was before BIFR. The learned Presiding Officer, however, has stayed further proceedings of the Original Application, but all the same insisted that affidavit disclosing their assets be filed and warned of taking action against them for non-compliance of the said order.

(3.) IN my view, however, when the reference before the Appellate Forum of BIFR is pending, even this cannot be done. Directing the defendants to disclose their assets is an oppressive order. Obviously, order dated 7.2.2001 would remain as it is. That order would not get obliterated or wiped out. But it cannot be implemented in view of Section 22(1) of the SICA, unless the reference is rejected by the Appellate Forum or consent is obtained from the board by the Bank to proceed with the matter. As such, when the proceedings of Original Application are stayed, in my opinion, directing the defendant No. 1 to disclose their assets on oath would not be of much significance as the proceedings of the original application as such can not go on. All the same, they can be resumed and threads can be picked up from where they had been left, if the reference is rejected or consent is obtained by the Bank to proceed with the matter. But the implementation of the order dated 7.2.2001 is not possible. The impugned order therefore will have to be interfered with. Hence, the following order is passed.