9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09,338 against the company in liquidation. The petitioner-bank is a secured creditor. A draft copy of the application to be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi, has been placed on record as Annexure A/4. 2. In Spic Electronics Systems Ltd. v. Kienzle Indian Samay Ltd. [S.B. Company Petition No. 5 of 1991, dated 7-4-1995], the company petition seeking winding up of the respondent-company has been admitted and the Official Liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator of the company. As per the averments made in the present petition and Annexure A/4, a sum of Rs. 1,38,09,338 were outstanding as on 31-7-1997 as debit balance against the respondent-company, which include a sum of Rs. 76,46,748 as principal amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as refused by the Bombay High Court on the ground that in defending by the Liquidator at far off place would be a wasteful expenditure and ordered transfer of the suit to the High Court at Bombay. The Supreme Court held that the order of transfer of the suit to the High Court of Bombay cannot be supported as transfer would result in greater expenditure to the appellant-bank which certainly is avoidable than the wasteful expenditure to the Official Liquidator. In Industrial Credit Investment Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Srinivas Agencies and others ( supra ) we find guidelines from the Supreme Court in a case where recovery proceedings initiated by the bank as secured creditor are pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out that sections 529 and 529A of the Act do contain provisions insofar as the priority of secured creditors claim is concerned. Of course, the company court would not transfer the proceeding to it merely because of its convenience ignoring the difficulties which may have to be faced by the secured creditor, who may be at a place far away from the seat of the company court. The need to protect the company from unnecessary litigation and cost have, however, to be borne in mind by the company court. We are, therefore, of the view that the approach to be adopted in this regard by the company Court does not deserve to be put in a strait-jacket formula. The discretion to be exercised in this regard has to depend on the facts and circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings against the company and other persons before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, with certain conditions." [Emphasis supplied] Vide order dated 28-8-1997, permission was granted to the applicant- bank to file application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi for recovery of the aforesaid amount as limitation was expiring. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. Leave is granted to the applicant-bank to continue debt recovery proceedings if the same has been filed or to file fresh recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi. The leave shall be subject to following conditions: ( 1 )The applicant will undertake to discharge the liability due to the workmen if any, under section 529A of the Act to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
