BELLARY STEELS AND ALLOYS LTD Vs. ICICI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being, aggrieved by the Order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal-III,- Mumbai on Exhibit No. 1 in Original Application No. 212 of 2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer appointed receiver with respect to the properties of the appellants as described in Exhibits A 1, A2, A3, B and C annexed to the plaint/original application and further ordered that the receiver to carry out first the inventory and thereafter submit report and thereafter he should proceed for sale of the properties by adopting due procedure for the same. He also directed that the applicant Bank namely the ICICI Bank Limited who is respondent No. 1 herein could appoint any person from the Bank so as to take the possession of the properties for the sale of the properties.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Madkholkar for the appellants and Mr. Sakseria for the Bank. I have gone through the voluminous proceedings including the impugned order, Roznama of the case and other relevant papers and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has hastily passed the Order of appointment of receiver with further directions to take inventory and sell the property in question, not because the Order is erroneous on merits. In fact, the matter has not been examined by me on merits at all. It appears that the learned Presiding Officer was unfair in passing the Order without giving full opportunity to the appellants to present their case as their arguments were not concluded and their matter was hastily posted for orders. It also appears that in fact when Advocate appearing for the appellants requested for time, the said application was rejected.

(3.) MR. Sakseria, however vehemently argued mainly on the merits of the matter. He pointed out from the proceedings and annexures that the appellant company was in a very bad shape, was facing financial constraints, was neck-deep in trouble, that dues from the appellants were huge, which are public funds that many Company Petitions for winding up of the appellant company were admitted by the Karnataka High Court. He supported the impugned order. He denied that any haste was shown by the learned Presiding Officer in passing the impugned order. He stated that Ms. Lala Wadhwani was directed to proceed with the matter though there was no Vakalatnama filed, but it was she, who declined to argue the matter further.