9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge of the assets and the affairs of the respondent No.2 Company. In order to protect the interest of the workmen and also the other creditors of the respondent No.2 Company, the Official Liquidator raised certain objections in the recovery proceedings in before the Recovery Officer. In the interregnum the petitioner company having invoked the provisions of SARFAESI Act had brought the secured assets which belonged to the respondent No.2 Company to sale by conducting an e-auction through the notice dated 15.12.2017. The fact that the respondent No.2 Company is in liquidation due to the order passed in the Company Petition No.8/2010 is not in dispute. If that be the position, the provision as contained in Section 529-A of the Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R MEDHI, J Heard Shri A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. A. Neog, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner bank is before this Court assailing the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Recovery Officer in OA 20/2011. The petitioner bank having advanced certain loan to the respondent No.2, had initiated recovery proceedings under RDDBFI Act by filing the application in OA 20/2011 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati seeking issue of recovery certificate. The said proceedings culminated in the judgment dated 12.08.2015 whereby the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application and issued the recovery certificate for a sum of ₹ 21,81,74,284.05 (Rupees Twenty One Crore Eigh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of the mortgaged property in a no-lien interest bearing FDR for a period of six months with provision of subsequent renewal in six months till further order and file the number of FDR account so credited with the Recovery Officer. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved by such direction issued by the Recovery Officer, is before this Court in this petition. 5. The fact that the respondent No.2 Company is in liquidation due to the order passed in the Company Petition No.8/2010 is not in dispute. If that be the position, the provision as contained in Section 529-A of the Companies Act would come into play and the distribution of the amount recovered in the liquidation proceedings will have to be made in the order of preference as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner Bank hereby undertakes to pay the amount finally determined as workmen s dues by the OL, including any shortfall, out of the sale proceeds amounting to ₹ 2,00,50,000/-, in case the Petitioner Bank is allowed to retain the same and adjust the amount towards the outstanding dues as per the Recovery Certificate. 6. If these aspects are kept in view and if the interest of the preferential creditors of the Company in the liquidation proceedings is protected, the direction issued by the Recovery Officer in OA 20/2011 through the order dated 12.03.2018 would not be sustainable at this point. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Recovery Officer in OA 20/2011 is set aside. However, it is made clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
