TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (10) TMI 500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectively, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, in terms of section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). 2. The aforementioned suits were instituted, as would appear from their numbers, in the years 1984 and 1985 for recovery of outstanding dues from Rohtas Industries Ltd. The applicant herein, i.e., Sahu Jain Ltd. was impleaded as a co-defendant as guarantor. During the pendency of the suits (in the Calcutta High Court before their eventual transfer to the Debt Recovery Tribunal), on 22-5-1986, a provisional liquidator with respect to Rohtas Industries Ltd. ('the company') was appointed by this court in the present proceedings. In the meantime, the workmen of the company filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court being Wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entioned suits which had by then been transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, in terms of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('the Debts Recovery Act'). By order under reference on 22-8-1997, the applications were allowed. This court noted that the two banks are the secured creditors of the company and, as such, they are entitled to stay out of the winding up proceedings. The leave, however, was granted on the condition that the official liquidator will be allowed to represent the companies in the suits and that the assets of the company will not be sold without permission of this court in the event the suits are decreed in favour of the banks. 5. The recall of the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he company, now represented by the official liquidator, who alone can file such an application. He submitted that on this very logic it was not necessary to issue notice of the application under section 446 to the applicant in terms of rule 117 of the Companies (Court) Rules. Mr. Sinha contended that the direction of the Supreme Court to consider the claims of the financial institutions and creditors has to be construed in the context of the revival proceedings. After this court abandoned its efforts to revive the company, it had to proceed in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. Mr. Sinha submitted that in any view of the matter, in view of the provisions of the Debts Recovery Act the question is of academic i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reditors the banks are required to stand outside the winding up proceedings. Their rights are neither abridged nor affected by the reports of the Claims Committee. In any view, the order dated 22-8-1997, under reference, it not likely to cause any prejudice to the applicant. Therefore, it is of no consequence if no notice as required under rule 117 of the Companies (Court) Rules was issued to it. 8. The sheet anchor of the argument of Mr. Shreenath Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, is the judgment and the order of the Supreme Court dated 18-10-1995, which has since been in Workmen of Rohtas Industries' case (supra). It is true that while disposing of the writ petition and remitting the matter back to this court the Supreme Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ications by banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to them. Section 18 excludes the jurisdiction of any other court except the Supreme Court and the High Courts (while exercising jurisdiction under article 226/227 of the Constitution). It lays down that on and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters specified in section 17. Section 34 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Act and section 31 provides for transfer of pending cases to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 9. In the case of Bihar Solex P. Ltd. (supra), this court concluded that after the coming into force of the Debts Recovery Act and esta....