Back
2009(1) Bankmann 277 (P&H)
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Permod Kohli, J.
Vedsons Engineers Pvt. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Vedsons Pvt. Ltd and Ors. —Respondents
C. P. No. 123 of 2007 (O&M)
Decided on 8.8.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.S. Narang, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3:Mr. A.P. Jagga, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Tribunal constituted under the Act has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide claims of the banks and the financial institutions.
Headnote:(i) Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993—Sections 17, 18—Tribunal—Constituted under the Act—Has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide claims of the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts—No Civil Court or Authority to exercise jurisdiction in that respect. (Para 14)
(ii) Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993—Section 25—Recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions —Movable and immovable property of defendant alone can be attached by the Recovery Officer. (Para 15)
(iii) Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993—Section 25—Jurisdiction of Recovery Officer—Property of company in liquidation not a party or judgment debtor before the DRT—Recovery Officer has no authority to deal with such property. (Para 23)
(iv) Companies Act, 1956—Sections 529, 529A, 530, 49—Property held in the name of a company—Belongs to the company—Not to the share holders of such company—In the event of winding up has to be distributed in accordance with the preferential claims and other claims of its secured creditors—Entire property vests with official liquidator as it’s trustees, custodian and manager. (Para 21)
Result: Petition disposed of.
Permod Kohli, J. —The petitioner is the Ex-Managing Director of Vedsons Engineers Private Limited (in liquidation). Present petition has been moved invoking Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 to seek a direction for protection of property of respondent No. 1 company from being sold by respondent No. 2 in execution of decree secured by respondent No. 3 against another company, namely, Vedsons Private Limited. It is useful to briefly notice the facts and circumstances whereunder present petition has been filed in this Court.
2. Respondent No.1, namely, Vedsons Engineers Private Limited, A1, Sector 17A, Chandigarh was ordered to be wound up vide order dated 22.5.1996 passed in company petition No. 27 of 1983. Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as the liquidator of the company in liquidation. The liquidator took possession of the assets of the company on 23.7.1996. Respondent No.1 company challenged the aforesaid order of winding-up in company appeal No.17 of 1996. Though initially, an interim stay was granted, however, company appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.3.1997. Aggrieved of the dismissal of the appeal, the company preferred special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 5.1.1998 granted leave and stayed further winding up proceedings. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a settlement came to be arrived at between Punjab National Bank and the company in liquidation. As a result thereof, the special leave petition was disposed off by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 18th July, 2006. During all this period, the property of company in liquidation taken over the Official Liquidator remained in his possession and control. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Vedsons Steels and Wires Pvt. Ltd. was impleaded as appellant No.2. The settlement before Hon’ble Supreme Court was allowed between respondent No.1 company, the Punjab National Bank and another company— Vedsons Steel and Wires Private Limited, added as appellant No.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the terms of settlement are only between appellant Nos.1 and 2 and the Punjab National Bank and not with reference to other creditors of the company, if any. Insofar as the winding up proceedings are concerned, the same are still pending before this Court.
3. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 3, Central Bank of India filed a suit for recovery against Vedsons Private Limited before Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The said suit came to be decreed on 10.5.1991 in favour of respondent No. 3 bank and against Vedsons Private Limited. It appears that the matter was transferred to the DRT-I, New Delhi, after the creation of the aforesaid Tribunal under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Tribunal issued a recovery certificate in the year 1999 on the basis of the decree dated 10.5.1991 for recovery of an amount of Rs.18,77,267.64. From the recovery certificate (Annexure A7), it appears that besides the company, Vedsons Private Limited, Mohali, District Ropar, Punjab, there were other individuals who were judgment debtors in the said certificate of recovery including one Smt. Raj Rani in her capacity as a guarantor of Vedsons Private Limited. Respondent No. 3 seems to have filed an affidavit before respondent No. 2 Recovery Officer alleging that Raj Rani is co-owner of property known as ‘Anand Cinema’ Plot No. 2853A, Sector 17A, Chandigarh and secured an order for attachment of the Anand Cinema to the extent of 1/3rd share in the aforesaid property.
4. Relevant extract from the order dated 13.2.2004 passed by respondent No. 2 is quoted hereunder:
“The counsel for C.H. Bank has filed affidavit wherein it is mentioned that C.D. No. 3 is one of the co-owner of mortgaged property i.e. commercial property (Anand Cinema, Sector 17A Chandigarh) commercial plot No. 2853A, Sector
