2014 (3) TMI 1240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nother For the Appellant : Sri A. Krishnam Raju For the Respondent No.2: Sri M. Anil Kumar COMMON ORDER: Company Application No.366 of 2012 is filed to permit the authorised officer of the applicant-Bank to continue in possession of respondent No.2's movable and immovable properties till they are sold. Company Application No.367 of 2012 is filed by the same applicant for permitting its....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ound to be associated by the secured creditor as he represents the workmen dues for which a pari pasu charge is held by him. This question, however, was considered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., v. Megnostar Telecommunications Co.App.No.58 of 2012, dated 17.09.2012. By its judgment, dated 17.09.2012, the Division Bench held that the ratio in Rajasthan F....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ced before the Court order, dated 17.02.2014, of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.36254 and 36255 of 2012 filed against the judgment in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (2 supra), wherein the following order is passed: "There is some inconsistency in the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Haryana State Industri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... client would not like to get entangled in this controversy and that the applicant-bank is prepared to follow the same directions as were issued in Rajasthan Financial Corporation (1 supra). Accordingly, the applicant is permitted to sell the properties of the company in liquidation by scrupulously following the directions issued in Rajasthan Financial Corporation (1 supra). The valuation re....