1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Defendant No.2 for discharge of the Court Receiver in respect of a part of the suit properties for which the Court Receiver was appointed with further directions to the Receiver to handover possession of the said properties to the Receiver appointed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

2. The Plaintiff, Defendants 3,4,5 & 6 who are also banks and public sector companies and who have a pari passu charge in respect of the suit properties, have not opposed this Notice of Motion. 3. Defendant Nos.1 and 7 have opposed the Notice of Motion though under an interim order of this Court all the parties including Defendant No.1 and 7 agreed to jointly dispose off the properties for payment of the liabilities of Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiffs as also Defendants 2 to 6.

4. The Defendant No.7 is a sister concern of Defendant No.1 and is stated to have certain machinery on the properties for which the Court Receiver is appointed.

5. Mr. Andhyarujina on behalf of Defendant No.1 contended that the defendant No.1 had filed an application with Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for reconstruction of Defendant No.1 Company and has filed an appeal from the order of the Board before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 (SICA). Consequent thereupon this suit cannot proceed. He has shown that in fact this Court passed 3 orders in this suit adjourning certain applications in the suit in Court Receiver’s Report sine die to be considered after the application before the AAIFR is decided.

6. The application of Defendant No.2 however is not for prosecuting the suit. The suit indeed cannot be prosecuted pending the application before the AAIFR. The Defendant No.2 has in fact applied for an order recalling an interim order already passed. The discharge of the Court Receiver would mean that the interim order of appointment of Court Receiver would not take effect in this suit so far as that portion of the suit property is concerned. All that the Receiver has to do is to handover possession of the properties mentioned in the Notice of Motion, which are a small part of the suit properties, to the Receiver appointed by the DRT. The Court Receiver will, therefore, not be custodia legis with regard to that portion of the suit property in this Suit. It will have to be seen whether such an order would tantamount to prosecuting the suit and would fall within the mischief of Section 22 of SICA, which requires suspension of “legal proceedings, contracts etc.”.

7. It may at once be mentioned that if the Plaintiff desired to prosecute the suit even by an interim proceeding calling upon the Court Receiver to sell, dispose off or to do any other act as the officer of the Court in charge of the suit properties, it may tantamount to continuation of the legal proceedings which is the suit. The Defendant No.2, on the other hand, desires the Court Receiver to call it a day. He desires the Court Receiver not to act any further. He has applied for an order of discharge of the Court Receiver and handing over the possession to another Court Receiver in another proceeding.

8. It is not for this Court to see whether that proceeding can be continued or not. That proceeding is in the Court of coordinate jurisdiction. In fact it is a special proceeding under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act). Whether or not Defendant No.2 can proceed with the Receiver of the DRT will have to be seen by the DRT. The only application of Defendant No.2 here is to discharge the Receiver and handover possession of the properties which Defendant No.2 claims.

9. My attention has been drawn to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India & Ors. 1999(3) ALL MR 145in which modificatio