9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 283 - HC - Companies LawTransfer / Assignment of debt - Matter of Substitution - Held that - Mr. Joshi submitted that the observations made by the learned Company Judge in paragraph no. 7 of the impugned order is now squarely covered by the judgement in Kotak Mahindra Bank 2015 (3) TMI 90 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT passed by this Bench.The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are reproduced.In light of the above observations made by the Apex Court, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the issue regarding substitution has already been concluded by the Apex Court. Mr. Ashok Shah, learned Senior Counsel has tried to contest this contention by submitting that the issue of substitution is not concluded by the Apex Court. We cannot accept this submission of Mr. Shah. A bare reading of the observations of the Apex Court in para 46 as extracted hereinabove makes it explicitly clear that the moment ICICI Bank Ltd. transfers the debt with underlying security, the borrower(s) ceases to be the borrower(s) of the bank and becomes the borrower(s) of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd (assignee). Thus it is explicitly clear that Kotak Mahindra Bank has become entitled to recover the amount from the borrowers and therefore their prayer for substitution cannot be rejected. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the observations made by the learned Company Judge in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgement and order are required to be quashed and set aside and the same are hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal shall be governed by the judgement and order dated 30.09.2014 passed in O.J. Appeal No. 156 of 2007 & allied matters. It shall be open to the appellant or successor or assignee to apply afresh and the same shall be considered on merits. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Issues:
Challenge to order disbursement to ICICI Bank, Observations made by Company Judge, Substitution issue, Quashing of observations, Applicability of previous judgment Analysis: The appellant challenged an order directing the Official Liquidator to disburse 19.12% of Rs. 15 crores to ICICI Bank Ltd. The Company Judge's order considered various claims and directed specific disbursements to different banks, including ICICI Bank. The appellant argued that the observations made by the Company Judge were covered by a previous judgment. The previous judgment concluded that the issue of substitution had been settled by the Apex Court, and the matter was remanded to the Company Judge for further consideration of remaining issues. The High Court agreed with the appellant, quashing the Company Judge's observations and allowing the appeal based on the previous judgment's applicability. The appellant or their successor could apply afresh, and the appeal was allowed in part, in line with the previous judgment. This case involved a challenge to an order directing the disbursement of funds to ICICI Bank Ltd. The Company Judge's order considered the available funds, workers' claims, and claims of other banks, directing specific disbursements to different entities. The appellant argued that the Company Judge's observations were covered by a previous judgment, which had settled the issue of substitution. The High Court agreed with the appellant, quashing the Company Judge's observations and allowing the appeal based on the previous judgment's applicability. The matter was remanded to the Company Judge for further consideration of remaining issues, with the appellant or their successor allowed to apply afresh. The High Court analyzed the Company Judge's order directing the disbursement of funds to ICICI Bank Ltd. The order considered the funds available with the Official Liquidator, workers' claims, and claims of other banks, specifying the disbursement percentages to different entities. The appellant contended that the Company Judge's observations were addressed in a previous judgment, which had settled the issue of substitution. The High Court concurred with the appellant, quashing the Company Judge's observations and partially allowing the appeal based on the previous judgment's relevance. The matter was remanded to the Company Judge for further consideration, allowing the appellant or their successor to apply afresh.
|
