9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2617 of 1999 and confirmed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 356 of 2002 on 13th November, 2002. 3. In a suit filed by the Appellant-Bank this Court on June 26, 1996 issued certain directions. Paragraph 2 of the said order reads as under : "2. The motion is for appointment of Receiver in respect of all the property. While giving reply to the arguments of the Plaintiff, the counsel for the defendant agreed to give Bank Guarantee within four weeks from today of a Nationalised Bank for a sum of Rs. 1.10 crores of assurance that Bank guarantee will be enhanced after every five years considering the pendency of the suit and accumulation of the interest." 4. It appears that the suit was transferred to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal which is challenged in the present Petition. 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that both the Tribunals proceeded on wrong basis. It was submitted that in State Bank of India v. Trade Aid Paper and Allied Products (India) (P.) Ltd. AIR Bom. 268, the Full Bench of this Court has held that in suits of banks and Financial institutions for recovery of loans, normally a Receiver should be appointed. Hence, in a suit filed by the bank, a prayer for appointment of Receiver was made. The prayer would have been granted by the Court, but for the fact that a statement was made on behalf of the debtor that he would give Bank Guarantee of a nationalised bank fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not in consonance with law and they are liable to be set aside. 11. Mr. Dwarkadas, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Tribunals. He submitted that it is an equitable order. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and protecting the interest of the Bank, if certain directions were issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and not disturbed by the Appellate Tribunal, it cannot be said to be a fit case to exercise extraordinary powers under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that while passing the order, subsequent development and change of circumstances were also taken into acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bank for appointment of Receiver. Hence, the grounds weighed with the Debt Recovery Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal do not impress us. 13. Obviously, in the circumstances it was perfectly reasonable and proper in the part of the Bank to ask for enhancement of Bank Guarantee. The order was self operative and as soon as five years were over, the amount was to be enhanced in the light of the order passed on 26th June, 1996. In any case, when the application was made by the Bank, it was to be decided considering the order passed on 26th June, 1996. 14. In our view, the application made by the debtor was ill-conceived and ought not to have been granted. Regarding change of circumstances, equity had been taken into account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
