Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (8) TMI 1385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ushma Singh for Defendant No.7 ORDER : 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Defendant No.2 for discharge of the Court Receiver in respect of a part of the suit properties for which the Court Receiver was appointed with further directions to the Receiver to handover possession of the said properties to the Receiver appointed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). 2. The Plaintiff, Defendants 3,4,5 & 6 who are also banks and public sector companies and who have a pari passu charge in respect of the suit properties, have not opposed this Notice of Motion. 3. Defendant Nos.1 and 7 have opposed the Notice of Motion though under an interim order of this Court all the parties including Defendant No.1 and 7 agreed to jointly dispose off t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice of Motion, which are a small part of the suit properties, to the Receiver appointed by the DRT. The Court Receiver will, therefore, not be custodia legis with regard to that portion of the suit property in this Suit. It will have to be seen whether such an order would tantamount to prosecuting the suit and would fall within the mischief of Section 22 of SICA, which requires suspension of "legal proceedings, contracts etc.". 7. It may at once be mentioned that if the Plaintiff desired to prosecute the suit even by an interim proceeding calling upon the Court Receiver to sell, dispose off or to do any other act as the officer of the Court in charge of the suit properties, it may tantamount to continuation of the legal proceedings which i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... agraph 11 of the judgment that the rights of the Defendant Company in respect of the ownership of the properties were not being proceeded against either by way of execution, distress or the like. It was observed that what was prohibited under Section 22 of SICA was proceedings for windingup the industrial company, or for execution, distress or the like or for appointment of the Court Receiver. It was observed that the property being custodia legis even a third party could have been appointed as the agent of the Receiver and a preference was given to one such party. The use of the property to be given to the Appellant was as Agent of the Court Receiver and not as an absolute owner. Consequently though the suit could not proceed the applicati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... effect a joint sale of the suit properties for which the Plaintiff as also Defendants 2 to 6 have a pari passu charge. It would also not tantamount to calling upon the Court Receiver to perform any of the duties and functions of a Court Receiver as an officer of the Court for the custody, possession or management of the properties in his charge or for resolution, management, protection preservation and improvement of the property, collection of rents and profits thereof, disposal of the rents and profits or execution of documents which may be the function of the Court Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 (c) & (d) of the C.P.C. 13. It is contended by Mr. Andyarujina on behalf of Defendant No.1 that the order of appointment of Court Receiver con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erties would be later managed and appropriated between the Creditors. 14. Counsel on behalf of Defendant No.7, which is the sister concern of Defendant No.2, claimed that all the parties to certain Notices of Motion taken out in this suit at the time of appointment of Court Receiver have not been served. The parties to the suit have been served. The parties in the Notice of Motion need not be served with a copy of subsequent Notice of Motion taken out by one of the parties in the suit. Of course, if the parties are going to be prejudicially effected they would have to be heard. 15. One of the parties who was a party in another earlier Notice of Motion is one Prerna Thakur. She is one of the Directors of Defendant No.1 Company. She is part .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates