TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sto & Mr. Rushin Kapadia i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Appellant. Mr. R.V. Desai, Senior Counsel with Mr. V. K. Nair for Respondent No.2. Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir for Official Liquidator for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel with Mr. Rupesh Bobde for Respondent No.3 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD):- 1. The appeal arises from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge in a company application that was moved by the Appellant for recalling an earlier order dated 12 February 2013 of the Company court. 2. M/s. Rajen Textile Private Limited, a company which is now in liquidation, mortgaged its leasehold rights in respect of the land bearing block Nos.399 to 403, 405 and 427 situated at village Barshi, Distri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the subject of security of the banks and financial institutions will have to be sold and disposed of by the recovery officer in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued by the D.R.T. under the provisions of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. In view thereof, I reject the present report made by the Official Liquidator. However, I direct the Official Liquidator to hold the properties subject to the orders passed by the D.R.T. in the said recovery proceedings which are pending before it. It is made clear that the Official Liquidator will hand over the possession of the premises as per the direction of the D.R.T. subject to recovery of necessary security charges and other expenses incurred by the Offici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e mortgaged leased lands and on the contrary expenses had been incurred towards meeting the security charges in respect of the lands. Central Bank stated that after obtaining a valuation from a Government approved valuer, it considered it beneficial to accept the proposal for surrender of its mortgage security for a consideration of Rs. 140 Lakhs. Central Bank further stated that it was ready to abide by the orders passed by the Tribunal in regard to the portion to be paid over to the Liquidator to meet the claim pari pasu, for the wages of the workmen. While allowing the application, the D.R.T., Pune permitted the bank to settle its dues in accordance with the agreement which had been arrived at. 6. The Appellant filed an appeal against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der dated 16 December 2004 passed by the Company court, the leasehold rights, which constituted a security of the Central Bank of India had to be sold by the orders of the D.R.T. in the recovery proceedings and the Liquidator had a limited role. The Liquidator was directed to hold the properties subject to the orders that may be passed by the DRT and to hand over the possession of the properties in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal; (ii) Well over 45 years earlier, the company in liquidation was closed without any business activity. No income has been fetched from the properties which were in the hands of the Liquidator and the Central Bank, as a secured creditor had been paying the security charges and incurring expen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in satisfaction of the decree could be passed by the Company Court; (viii) The Appellant had not made a bona fide proposal. The Appellant proposed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1.75 Crores in 2012 subject to the condition that the bank shall give up all its claims not only in respect of the leasehold properties, but also in respect of free hold properties, though the claim of the bank was in excess of Rs. 25 Crores. The Appellant had not taken any steps to clear the liabilities of the company in liquidation and the offer made before the Company court was not bonafide. On these grounds, the company application came to be dismissed. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Official Liquid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellant has sought to question the correctness of the order passed by the D.R.T before the D.R.A.T. The Appeal was dismissed for non- removal of objections and an application for restoration is now pending. 12. The Company application, which the Liquidator moved before the Company Judge and which resulted in the passing of the order dated 12 February 2013 was merely consequential to the order passed by the D.R.T. The learned Company Judge was in our view right in coming to the conclusion that it would lie outside the jurisdiction of the Company court to sit in appeal over the order passed by the D.R.T., particularly having regard to the position that the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 provides for ....