9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e loan and the petitioner thus filed proceedings for recovery of the debts before the DRT by way of OA No.148/2002. This application was allowed on 20.04.2006 and a decree was passed against the respondent-company and its guarantors for a sum of ₹ 233,73,92,900-27/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 10 per cent per annum from 19.07.2002 till realization with costs of ₹ 1.5 lakhs. The petitioner took out execution proceedings before the Recovery Officer and in pursuance to the order dated 08.12.2007, the properties mentioned in the schedule to the annexure of the application were attached and sold for realization of the dues. 3. The respondent-company also went into liquidation in view of the orders passed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overy Officer on 22.02.2010. While disposing of the application, the Recovery Officer directed the petitioner to furnish an undertaking of a competent officer that in future if any eligible claims in excess of the amount available with the OL is received by the OL, requisite amount as per law shall be remitted by petitioner-Corporation to the OL. This is so because other than the amount realized from the moveable assets, the petitioner-Corporation had to stand in queue pari passu with other unsecured creditors and the workmen s liability would naturally take precedence over it. The Recovery Officer further directed that a sum of ₹ 1 crore shall be kept with the OL on a provisional basis for defraying of various expenses. 5. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in pursuance to a subsequent advertisement, the same could be dealt with as recorded in that order especially keeping in mind the undertaking already given by the petitioner pursuant to the order of the Recovery Officer dated 22.02.2010. Learned counsel also conceded that expenses for future advertisements would be borne by the petitioner out of the amount lying in account with the petitionerCorporation. 7. We had issued notice to the OL on the same date along with a copy of the order and learned counsel entered appearance for the OL on 17.08.2010 but expressed his ignorance about the order dated 28.07.2010 and requested for some time to examine the order and file a counter affidavit to that limited extent. No counter affidavit wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at no written communication quantifying the amount required by the OL has been sent to the petitioner. 10. We find that the facts of the present case are peculiar inasmuch as the money is lying with the petitionerCorporation which is a public financial institution to the extent of sale realization from the immoveable properties in respect of which the petitioner-Corporation is not a secured creditor, but no other claims have been verified to show that there are other unsecured creditors or claim of workmen which is yet to be satisfied. The amount realized from sale of both moveable and immoveable assets is not even fraction of the amount which is due to the petitioner under the decree. 11. The function of the OL is only to ensure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
