9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be read with Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act. The respondent No. 1 by way of relief sought an order to direct the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to pay to respondent No. 1 an amount of ₹ 1,64,79,715.70 ps., being the amount of debt admitted by the petitioners within one month from the date of the order. There is one more relief which need not be adverted to. Along with the application of 16th June, 2003 was annexed the auditors report as also copies of the Profit and Loss Account for the year ended on 31st March, 2000. The Profit and Loss Account was signed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 1-9-2000. 3. The petitioner herein filed their reply to the said application. The contention of the petitioner was that the application was misconceived and that the provisions under which the application was moved, would indicate that this power could be exercised after making proper application and not at the interim stage. By referring to Rule 12(5) of the Rules, it was contended that the admission contemplated by Rule 12(5) is required to be made in the proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned Appellate Tribunal also relied on the judgment in the case of Uttam Singh Dugal and Company (supra) and was pleased to dismiss the appeal. This order, is also the subject-matter of the present petition. 6. At the hearing of the petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the admission could not be an admission outside the proceedings but had to be an admission in the pleadings in the proceedings. In the instant case that was not so and consequently, the order of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the original application before the DRT was barred by limitation, considering that the cause action is the Profit and Loss Account of 31st March, 2000 and the original application has been filed only on 16-6-2003 and at any rate it is submitted that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of filing the written statement. That was not done. For all the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that the petition should be dismissed. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Let us firstly consider the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned.' Under Section 18, statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions. In other words, statements made by a party to the proceeding can be treated as admission by the party. Section 21 sets out the admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them. It would, therefore, be clear from a consideration of these provisions, that an admission is a statement, oral or documentary made by any person which suggest an inference as to a fact in issue or relevant fact. Under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, there are certain statutory requirements. A perusal of Sections 210, 211(5), 215 and 216 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 would indicate that the balance sheet and profit and loss account has to be filed by every company incorporated under the Act. Under Section 224, every company at its annual meeting has to appoint an auditor. That auditor under Section 227 has been conferred powers. Unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of the pleadings. In the instant case also, in the application, the respondent No. 1 had pleaded based on the profit and loss account of the petitioners that the amount set out therein was an admission that the amount was due and payable. There was no specific denial except for such vague pleadings. It is, therefore, clear that there was an admission by the petitioner in response to the application taken out by the respondent No. 1. No material was produced or explanation given of the circumstance under which the admission was made to take it out of the category of admissions which created the liability. On this count itself, the petition, in our opinion is liable to be dismissed as the admission would be admission binding on the petitioner and it was open to the Tribunal to pass an order in terms of Section 19(20) of the Act read with Rule 12(5) of the Rules. Assuming it not to be so, then whether the admission is required to be made only in the pleadings. The language of the Rule does not lend itself to that construction, as the expression does not require that the admission must be made by the defendant in the pleadings before the Tribunal. The expression def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
