9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent’s unit but that is a matter between the respondent and the Kerala Financial Corporation or other Governmental Agencies and cannot in any manner affect the legal rights that have accrued to the appellant as a consequence of a series of orders/judgments - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8491 OF 2001 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2008 - TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ. Adarsh B. Dial, Gopal Trivedi and Rajiv Nanda for the Appellant. M.C. Jose for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Harjit Singh Bedi, J. - This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts. 2. The Syndicate Bank, the appellant herein, sanctioned various credit limits to the respondent No. 1 company including an overdraft limit of Rs. 1,00,000 and wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h had been formulated by the Reserve Bank of India. The suit was accordingly decreed on 9-4-1990 and the defendants were given a year s time for payment. No appeal was filed against this judgment with the result that it attained finality. An application for execution of the decree (EP No. 819/1991) was filed by the Bank on 20-12-1991 and while the matter was still pending, the judgment-debtors (the defendants in the above suit) filed civil suit (No. 1340/1993) for injunction seeking an order prohibiting the execution of the decree rendered in O.S. No. 732/1987 alleging that it was a nullity. The Bank contested the suit which was ultimately dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 1-3-1996 and as no appeal was filed there-against, this decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny the auction purchaser. Vide order dated 21-7-1998 the execution application Nos. 847/1997 and 1197/97 were dismissed. This order was challenged by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the original defendants, by way of CRP No. 2315/1998 alleging that the execution proceedings ought to have been stayed pending the decision of the proceedings under section 18FH of the Regulation Act and section 22 of SICA. The respondent No. 1 Company also filed a writ petition on 7-4-2000 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (No. O.P. 11862 of 2000) in the Kerala High Court against the Government of Kerala, the Kerala Financial Corporation, the Syndicate Bank and Antony the auction purchaser alleging that the judgment-debtors unit had been rendered s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt. I have already found that section 22 of SICA or section 18FH of the IDR Act have any application in the present case and as such the above order dismissing E.A. 847/97 and E.A. 1197/97 has only to be upheld in the ordinary course. As the suit was instituted and proceeded in collusion with the KFC and as both the above financial institutions have agreed before the 1st respondent for the revival of the industry granting concessions and packages (as evident from ext. P.24), I think it just and proper to set aside the sale of the property of the Managing Director of the company in execution of the decree in O.S. 732/87. In fact the KFC was strangulating the industry from one side whereas the Bank was doing the same thing on the Managing D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that the respondent was not entitled to any relief under section 22 of the SICA or under section 18FH of the Regulation Act, it had virtually set aside all the effective orders of the Civil Courts which had been made in favour of the appellant-Bank and had attained finality. It has further been pleaded that the further direction of the High Court as to the entitlement of the respondent to the benefit of the resettlement schemes for revival was not the issue before it as the executing court or the High Court could not go beyond the decree itself and hold that the suit which had led the decree was bad having been filed in collusion with one or the other party. Respondent No. 2 appearing in person has, however, argued that the High Court had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for recovery of the sums advanced as loan plus interest. This suit was decreed on 9-4-1990 with the positive finding that there was no harsh or arbitrary behaviour in the proceedings against the respondent. Admittedly, no appeal was filed against the judgment dated 9-4-1990 and it attained finality. The appellant Bank thereafter filed E.P. No. 819/1991 for the realization of the decretal amount on which the respondent filed O.S. No. 1430/93 praying that the appellant-Bank be injuncted from executing the decree in O.S. No. 732/1997. This suit too was dismissed on 1-4-1996. Another Pauper Petition No. 19/1997 was filed by the respondent claiming damages from the Bank and this too was dismissed. Admittedly all these matters have attained fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
