SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 232

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H. L. Dattu, Dipak Misra, JJ.
The Official Liquidator, U.P. and Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Allahabad Bank and others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2511 OF 2013
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 35627 of 2011)
Decided On : 12-03-2013

Recovery of dues of Banks - Auction sale - Official liquidator - DRT Act vis-à-vis Companies Act.

Headnote:(a) Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 34 and 19(19) r/w section 529-A, Companies Act, 1956 - Recovery of Banks dues - Company under winding-up - Official liquidator has to be associated with auction sale - As per section 19(19) sale proceeds to be distributed in accordance with section 529-A, Companies Act, 1956. (Paras 19 and 23)

        (2000) 4 SCC 406; (2013) 1 SCC 462; (2003) 10 SCC 482; (2000) 7 SCC 291; AIR 1962 SC 403; [11] - Relied upon

        (2005) 8 SCC 190; AIR 1966 SC 135; (2005) 5 SCC 75 - Referred

        (b) Companies Act, 1956 - Section 187 - Company Court - Jurisdiction - Original and ordinary civil jurisdiction - Not appellate - Does not affect High Courts jurisdiction u/Art. 226/227 of the Constitution. (Paras 21 and 22)

        AIR 1962 SC 403; (2013) 2 SCC 101 - Relied upon

        (c) Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 25 to 28 - Appeal against actions of Recovery Officer - Official Liquidator ought to have appealed to DRT instead of approaching the Company Court. (Para 26)

        Allahabad Bank; Rajasthan State Financial Corporation - Relied upon

        (2008) 7 SCC 738 - Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

        The question arising in this appeal is whether the Company Judge under the Companies Act, 1956 has jurisdiction at the instance of the Official Liquidator to set aside the auction or sale held by the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or whether the Official Liquidator is required to follow the route as engrafted under the RDB Act by filing an appeal assailing the auction and the resultant confirmation of sale.

       Finding of the Court:

        Division Bench of the High Court is right in its conclusion.

       Result : Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The spinal issue that has spiralled to this Court is whether the Company Judge under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short “the 1956 Act”) has jurisdiction at the instance of the Official Liquidator to set aside the auction or sale held by the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for brevity “the RDB Act”) or whether the Official Liquidator is required to follow the route as engrafted under the RDB Act by filing an appeal assailing the auction and the resultant confirmation of sale.

3. Regard being had to the controversy involved which is in the realm of pure question of law, it is not necessary to exposit the facts in detail. Hence, the necessitous facts are adumbrated herein. The respondent, Allahabad Bank, a secured creditor with whom certain properties were mortgaged, filed Original Application No. 153 of 1999 under Section 9 of the RDB Act for recovery of a sum of Rs.39,93,47,701/- with interest from the company, namely, M/s. Rajindra Pipes Limited, which was decreed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (DRT) vide its order dated 7.3.2000. The Debt Recovery Certificate being DRC No. 164 of 2000 was issued for recovery of the aforesaid amount which was subsequently transferred to the DRT at Allahabad. Be it noted, Company Petition No. 113 of 1997 was filed before the learned Company Judge in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad who, vide order dated 26.7.2000, had passed an order for winding up of the company, as a consequence of which the Official Liquidator had taken over the possession of the assets of the company on 24.7.2002. After receipt of the Recovery Certificate, the Recovery Officer attached the immoveable properties of the wound-up company by order dated 29.8.2002. The moveable properties of the company were attached as per order dated 23.12.2003. At this juncture, the Allahabad Bank filed an application before the Company Court for impleading it as a necessary party and protect its rights getting it out of the winding up proceedings. A prayer was made before the Company Court to grant permission to proceed with the sale of the attached properties by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The learned Company Judge, on 13.2.2004, granted permission for proceeding with the attachment and sale of the assets for recovery of the dues under the RDB Act. It is worth stating here that no condition was imposed.

4. After auction and confirmation of sale by the DRT, the auction-purchaser filed an application before the learned Company Judge for issuance of a direction to the Official Liquidator to give physical possession. The Company Court, by order dated 4.4.2007, set aside the sale certificate on the ground that the Official Liquidator was neither heard in the matter nor was he given an opportunity to represent before the Recovery Officer for the purposes of representing the workmen’s dues and a portion of the workmen’s liability under Section 529-A of the 1956 Act. A direction was issued to the Recovery Officer to proceed to sell the assets only after associating the Official Liquidator and after giving him hearing to represent the claims of the workmen.

5. As the facts get further unfolded, after associating the Official Liquidator, the auction was held and the Recovery Officer proceeded with the confirmation of sale. At that stage, the Official Liquidator filed his objections pertaining to fixation of the reserve price, the non-inclusion of certain assets and the manner in which the auction was conducted. The Recovery Officer, after hearing the Bank and the Official Liquidator, confirmed the sale and a date was fixed for handing over the possession to the auction-purchaser, but the same could not be done as the Official Liquidator chose not to remain present. Thereafter, the auction-purchaser filed an application before the learned Company Judge for issue of a direction to the Official Liquidator to hand








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top