9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Jurisdiction of the High Court under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, vis-`a-vis the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act); Validity and enforceability of the scheme of compromise/arrangement proposed by the petitioners; Objections raised by IndusInd Bank Ltd. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of High Court vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal: The principal objection raised by IndusInd Bank Ltd. was based on the jurisdictional conflict between the High Court and the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). IndusInd Bank argued that, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in *Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank [2004] 4 JT 411*, the DRT has exclusive jurisdiction over matters of adjudication, execution, and working out priorities concerning debts due to banks and financial institutions. The RDB Act, being a special statute enacted later than the Companies Act, 1956, would override the latter. The High Court acknowledged this objection, stating that the RDB Act was enacted to provide expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions, and thus, has overriding effect over the Companies Act. The Supreme Court in *Allahabad Bank's case* emphasized that the DRT's jurisdiction is exclusive and covers matters of adjudication, execution, and working out priorities, and this exclusiveness must be respected. 2. Validity and Enforceability of the Scheme: The petitioners proposed a scheme of compromise and arrangement with secured creditors, which was approved by the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) Cell and a Monitoring Committee was appointed. The scheme was approved by a majority of secured creditors, with 90.73% consenting to it. However, IndusInd Bank, which did not consent, argued that the High Court could not sanction a scheme that would affect its claim pending before the DRT. The High Court agreed, stating that sanctioning the scheme would dilute the plenary powers of the DRT and curtail its jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of IndusInd Bank. The scheme, therefore, had to be modified to exclude IndusInd Bank from its purview. 3. Objections Raised by IndusInd Bank Ltd.: IndusInd Bank contested the amount due as stated by the petitioners and highlighted its pending proceedings before the DRT for recovery of its dues. The High Court upheld IndusInd Bank's objection, emphasizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the DRT as established by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the scheme of arrangement proposed by the petitioners had to be modified to exclude any reference to IndusInd Bank, ensuring that the proceedings before the DRT would not be affected by the scheme. Conclusion: The High Court sanctioned the scheme of compromise/arrangement proposed by the petitioners, subject to modifications. The scheme was modified to exclude any reference to IndusInd Bank Ltd., ensuring that the proceedings pending before the DRT for the recovery of the debt due to IndusInd Bank would not be affected. Additionally, the petitioners were required to provide prior notice to Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. before carrying out any sale of assets under the scheme that would affect IndusInd Bank's securities. The company petition was disposed of accordingly, with the scheme being sanctioned as modified.
|
