D.K. DESHMUKH, J.:---Suit No. 3844 of 1999 is filed by Marine Container Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Seagate Trading Investment (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Seagold Finance Investment (Services) Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Omega International Container against one Dhirajlal Hakimchand Vora for a money decree in the amount of Rs. 4,73,00,000/- with interest.

Suit No. 3828 of 1999 is filed by the same plaintiffs against Rajesh Dhirajlal Vora for recovery of the identical amount and Suit No. 3845 of 1999 is filed by the same plaintiffs against Sunayana Rajesh Vora for a decree in the identical amount. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had advanced loans to the companies and partnerships, which are controlled by the three defendants, who belongs to the same family and to secure those loans these three defendants had executed personal guarantee in favour of the plaintiffs.

2. These suits have been filed on the basis of those guarantees for recovery of the amount of loans. In these three suits, the plaintiff have taken out motions for attachment of the properties of the defendants as also for disclosure of the assets. One of the Companies controlled by the defendants namely M/s. Rushabh Precision Bearing Ltd. is presently before the BIFR, loan in the amount of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- has been advanced by the plaintiffs. That sum is included in the sum in which the decree is sought in these suits. Therefore, firstly, objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that because part of the claim made in these suits relates to the loan advanced by the plaintiffs to a company, which is before the BIFR, in view of the provisions of section 22 of the SICA Act, present proceedings have to be stayed and cannot be proceeded further.

3. This position was disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. According to him, despite pendency of the proceedings before the BIFR against one of the companies, this Court has the jurisdiction to consider this Notice of Motion and the pendency of the proceedings before the BIFR does not oust the jurisdiction of this Court to hear these Notices of Motion.

4. In my opinion, however, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the question whether because proceedings in relation to one of the companies to which loan has been advanced are pending before the BIFR, whether these proceedings in this suit can go on or not? Because, according to me, even if it is assumed that proceedings in these suits for recovery, in so far as, they relate to the recovery of the amount against the company which is before the BIFR cannot be continued, still the amounts which have been advanced to the other companies and the partnership firm excluding the amount of loan that has been advanced to the company which is before the BIFR is substantial and there can be no dispute that those proceedings for securing the claim of the plaintiffs in relation to the loan advanced to the other company and partnership firm can definitely go on before the Court. The plaintiffs, in these suits have claimed a decree in the amount of Rs. 4,73,00,000/-, which is the principal amount together with interest and the principal amount of loan against the company, which is before the BIFR is to the tune of Rs. 2,65,00,000/-. Therefore, even the balance amount of loan, which has been advanced to the other company and the partnership firm being substantial, in my opinion, these Notices of Motion can be considered by the Court to find out whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the order of attachment before judgment. In so far as the financial position of the defendants is concerned, in the suits, which have been filed by the plaintiffs against the companies and the partnership firm, which are controlled by the defendants for recovery of amounts of loan advanced to them, I have found that the financial position of these concerns is in doldrums, that during the pendency of the proceedings they have transferred the properties and therefore, I have alre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document