9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon the second advertisement having been issued by the OL, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Company Judge directing the Appellant Corporation to deposit the sale proceeds relating to the sale of immovable property of the Company in liquidation with the Official Liquidator - Appeal dismissed. - CO. APP. 64/2013 - - - Dated:- 10-9-2013 - Reva Khetrapal And Pratibha Rani,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. P. S. Bindra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Samar Singh Kalhwaha, Advocate. ORDER (Oral) : Reva Khetrapal, J. 1. The Appellant in the present appeal seeks to challenge and impugn the order dated 1.8.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Company Application being C.A. No. 1073/2012 in Company Petition No. 75/2002 in the matter of Lord Krishna Bank Limited Vs. Koshika Telecom Limited , whereby the Appellant was directed to deposit the sale proceeds with interest realized from Koshika Telecom Limited with the Official Liquidator. 2. The facts pertinent to the present Appeal are that the Appellant, M/s IFCI Limited is a public financial institution which had provided loan and granted other facilities to the Respondent/Company to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry Officer. The Appellant filed an application before the Recovery Officer praying that the proceeds realized from the sale of the assets to the tune of approximately Rs. 12 Crores be allowed to be appropriated by the Appellant. By an order dated 22.2.2010, the Recovery Officer allowed the said application relying upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank vs. Canara Bank and Another (2004) SCC 406. This led to the filing of an appeal by the Respondent before the DRT. By its order dated 11.6.2010, the Presiding Officer, DRT allowed the appeal and modified the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the Recovery Officer to the extent that the Respondent Company at this stage was held entitled to the amount received from the sale of land sold by the Recovery Officer and the amount received from the sale of movable assets of the Respondent were allowed to be retained with the Appellant. Aggrieved therefrom the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 13.7.2010, the said appeal preferred by the Appellant was dismissed. Left with no other option, the Appellant preferred a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 6.12.2010, an advertisement for inviting claims from secured/unsecured creditors and workmen had been published in the newspapers on 14.11.2011. Pursuant to the said publication, certain claims had been received and examined by the Official Liquidator, details whereof were set out in paragraph 5 of the application. With respect to the sale proceeds lying with the Appellant, it was stated that despite several letters issued to the Appellant to remit the same, no reply or response had been received till date. 5. The Appellant Corporation filed a reply to the said application stating that the same was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed for the reason that while deciding W.P.(C) No.5014/2010 filed by the Appellant, a Division Bench of this Court had held that the Appellant was entitled to retain the amount realized against the sale of immovable properties till the time the claims of other unsecured creditors were verified. It was further stated that in any event the Appellant Corporation was not liable to deposit the entire sale proceeds with the Official Liquidator till the time the claims were verified. After con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that it was never the intent of the Division Bench that the amount lying with the Appellant Corporation, which is an unsecured creditor, should remain with the Appellant Corporation for all times to go and even if claims of other creditors were filed with the OL:- 8. ..It is not disputed that the no claims have been received in pursuance to the first advertisement except one claim but even the particulars of that have not been set out nor whether the same has been verified. All that is submitted by the learned counsel for OL is that advertisements are required to be issued in different states i.e. Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Orissa and Bihar, for which permission had been granted by the learned Company Judge. 9. On a query being posed, learned counsel for the respondent-Company despite the presence of dealing person from the Office of OL cannot state as to what would be the costs of such advertisements. However, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Corporation has already undertaken on behalf of the petitioner that the costs would be borne by the petitioner. It is also not disputed before us that no written communication quantifying the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
