TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 1285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hypothecated with the petitioner-Corporation. 2. The respondent-company and the guarantors failed to repay the 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation is stated to be about 12 crores and thus a large amount of the debt of the petitioner-Corporation remained unsatisfied. This application was allowed by the Recovery 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 pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration would be pari passu with such unsecured creditor. It was pointed out by learned counsel that no such claim had been received despite an earlier advertisement but in case any such claim is received 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OL cannot state as to what would be the costs of such advertisements. However, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Corporation has already undertaken on behalf of the petitioner that the costs would be borne by the petitioner. It is also not disputed before us that 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 sh....