9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstruction package. 3. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, a meeting was convened of the secured creditors on 20-5-2006. The report of the Scrutineer sets out that out of the eight secured creditors who attended the meeting, seven who had a total outstanding of Rs. 6204.62 lakhs voted in favour of the scheme of compromise/arrangement. IndusInd Bank Ltd. which is also a secured creditor voted against the scheme. According to the petitioners, the outstandings, due and payable to IndusInd Bank were Rs. 409.53 lakhs. This has been contested by the Bank and according to the Bank, the correct amount due as on 30-6-2005 stood at Rs. 625.63 lakhs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. has instituted proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for the recovery of its dues. The proceeding initiated by the Bank (O.A. No. 253/05) is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai. 4. The principal objection which has been urged on behalf of IndusInd Bank Ltd. is that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank [2004] 4 JT 411 the exclusive jurisdiction on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the debt due to industrial Bank will have to be upheld in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank s case ( supra ). The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was enacted in pursuance of the report of the Narsimham Committee in order to provide expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. Sub-section (1) of section 17 provides that the Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed date, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to them. Section 18 bars the jurisdiction, power or authority (except of the Supreme Court and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution) relating to matters specified in section 17. Section 34 centers overriding effect upon the provisions of the Act, notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force. In the decision in Allahabad Bank s case ( supra ) the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in matters of adjudication is exclusive. One of the points which arose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is to enacted speedy and expeditions adjudication and realisation of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions. Secondly, in the exercise of powers conferred by section 17 of the RDB Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal have a plenary jurisdiction to enter upon and determine all issue pertaining to adjudication, execution and working out priorities. Thirdly the process of adjudication into the debt due to IndusInd Bank has already been set in motion by the institution of proceedings under the RDB Act. The sanctioning of the scheme under sections 391 to 394 will unquestionably dilute the full and plenary powers conferred under the Tribunal under the RDB Act to adjucticate upon the claim of the Bank as presented. Fourthly, the exercise of powers of the company Court in matters which, fall within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, would clearly amount to curtailing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the claim of recovery submitted before the Tribunal. 8. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank s case ( supra ) was sought to be distinguished in proceedings which arose before the Kerala High Court on the ground that the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts have consented to the scheme. Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. which represents 3.38 in value of the total outstand- ing abstained from voting. The report of the Scrutineer, dated 13-6-2006, has set out that more than 3/4th in value of the secured creditors of the Company present at the meeting voted in fovour of the scheme of compromise/arrangement. Even if, due consideration is given to the fact that the claim of IndusInd Bank Ltd. is asserted by the Bank at Rs. 625.63 lakhs (as opposed to Rs. 409.53 lakhs as stated in the scheme of compromise/arrangement) that would not affect the question as to whether 3/4th in value of the secured creditors had affirmed the scheme. The regional Director has appeared before the Court through counsel to state that there is no objection to the scheme. Amongst the secured creditors, those who opted for the scheme are Industrial Bank of India, State Bank of India, State Bank of Hydarabad, Bank of India and Karnataka Bank Ltd. Those lending institutions have agreed to the scheme, having taken a considered decision in their commercial interest. The scheme contemplates various additional conditions. A Monitoring Committee has been constituted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
