9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PNB and HUDCO has been waived. The requirement to deposit Rs. 5 crores each with PNB and HUDCO has been maintained – Held that:- secured creditors representing more than 75 per cent of the secured debt can take recourse to section 13 of Act No. 54 of 2002 notwithstanding any proceeding pending before BIFR. no material to prima facie establish that PNB had the consent of HUDCO to proceed under section 13 of Act No. 54 of 2002 and since the debt due to PNB was not representing 3/4th in value of the secured debt, action initiated by PNB was void. appeal under section 17 of Act No. 54 of 2002 by a party aggrieved against a measure taken by a secured creditor under section 13(4) of the said Act, inheres in DRT power to pass interim directions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dues by the two secured creditors before it i.e., PNB and HUDCO approximates about Rs. 70 crores and that even the petitioner was admitting liability approximating about Rs. 10 crores. It has thus been directed that the petitioner would pay Rs. 5 crores each to PNB and HUDCO by 31-3-2010 and thereafter would deposit Rs. 50 lakhs per month with PNB and HUDCO as a condition of the stay of the notices issued by PNB under section 13 of Act No. 54 of 2002. The order in appeal has resulted in partial success to the petitioner. The condition of Rs. 50 lakhs per month being deposited with PNB and HUDCO has been waived. The requirement to deposit Rs. 5 crores each with PNB and HUDCO has been maintained. 3. Relevant facts are that the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industrial Company and PNB was appointed as an Operating Agency. 7. It is unfortunate that proceedings under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985, which commenced in the year 2001 have meandered aimlessly and till date we do not have either an order sanctioning a scheme for the rehabilitation of the petitioner, nor do we have an order requiring the company to be wound up. 8. We wonder whether Tribunalization and constitution of specialized Tribunals has served any purpose? But since the issue before us is not to render an opinion on the efficacy of Tribunalization, we leave the question unanswered. 9. Reverting to the facts, it may be noted that a memorandum of understanding was arrived at on 12-12-2004 betwe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be deposited within 15 days of acceptance of the proposal; the first instalment as also the second in sum of Rs. 31.25 lakhs were not paid. 12. It can thus safely be said that by offering to settle the claim of PNB, the petitioner had accepted liability in sum of Rs. 2.75 crores. Qua PNB it cannot be said that it accepted its entitlement limited to Rs. 2.75 crores, for the reason PNB was giving a concession and the sum agreed to be accepted by it was the discounted value of the debt due to it. On 9-10-2007, intimating defaults committed by the petitioner the one-time settlement accepted by PNB was withdrawn. 13. It was under these circumstances PNB proceeded under section 13 of Act No. 54 of 2002. 14. Three issues were raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 was a subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in various appeals filed in the year 2006 against decisions of the Madras High Court pronounced in the year 2005 and the issue attained finality when the decision reported as Transcor v. Union of India 2008 (1) SCC 125 ([2007] 73 SCL 11) . was that a secured creditor had an independent remedy under Act No. 54 of 2002. Thus, none can blame PNB and HUDCO not to proceed under Act No. 54 of 2002 till the year 2008. 17. Prima facie, it has to be held that the proceedings initiated by PNB are within limitation and we express no conclusive opinion on the point for the reason, a final decision on the said issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to the recourse taken by the secured creditors under sub-section 4 of section 13 of the Act. This power of the Tribunal to pass interlocutory orders is no longer res integra and is well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court 2004 Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India 2004 (4) SCC 311 ([2007] 73 SCL 11).wherein the Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal in exercise of its ancillary powers shall have jurisdiction to pass any stay/interim order subject to such condition as it may deem fit and proper to impose. Needless to state, appeal filed to the DRAT under section 18 of Act No. 54 of 2002 would include an appeal against an interim order passed by DRT and the Appellate Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
