Swatanter Kumar, J. - Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) has filed this petition under Section 446 of the Companies Act for permission to present and prosecute an application under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur against the respondents herein.

2. In response to the notice issued in this petition, the respondents have put in appearance through their counsel.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The facts to which no dispute can be raised are that M/s Amrit Cellulose Limited is stated to be not in a position to pay its creditors and a company petition for winding up of the petition being C.P. No. 69 of 1995 was filed before this Court. Vide order dated 10th October, 1997, the company was ordered to be wound up and the official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as Liquidator of the Company under the provisions of the Companies Act.

5. The respondent-Company is having its registered as well as Head Office at Chandigarh and they had approached the Bank for seeking financial assistance. The Bank had provided Rs. 100 lakh financial assistance to the respondent company which defaulted to re-pay the amount and as on 30th September, 1997 under various accounts a sum of Rs. 2,16,43,702/- is stated to be due and payable to the Bank by the respondent-Company. The respondent No. 1 is the company while respondents No. 2 to 5 are erstwhile Directors and guarantors for the re-payment of the loan of the Bank. Respondents 6 to 8 are the other secured creditors having the charge of the property of the respondents No. 1 company. Respondent No. 9 is the Official Liquidator appointed by this Court, the company being under liquidation. It is not even disputed by petitioner that respondent No. 6 to 8 are secured creditors and they have lien on the assets of the Company. The copy of the proposed application to be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal has been placed on record as Annexure A to the main petition. The bare reading of this proposed application shows that the aforestated amounts are due to the petitioner from the respondent company. There appears to be no legal impediment as to why permission prayed for be not granted to the Bank.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have not pointed out anything on record to show that the proposed petition is barred under any law.

7. The Company Court which has ordered winding up of the Company has a duty to protect the assets of the Company but at the same time it must ensure expeditious disposal of the suits and proceedings filed by and against the Company. If the company Court itself cannot dispose of the proceedings expeditiously, normally there should not be any impediment for granting such permission to the Bank to prosecute the case before another forum, specially when such forum is provided under the statute. The Company Court can grant leave in its discretion which may be conditional or unconditional depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Reference in this regard can be made to a detailed judgment of this Court in the case of Industrial Finance Corporation of India and others v. M/s Rama Fibres Limited and others, (1998-1)118 P.L.R. 520.

8. For the reasons afore-stated, this petition is allowed. The Bank is granted leave under section 446 of the Companies Act to present the accompanying proposed petition, Annexure-A, to the main petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and pursue the same. However, the grant of leave is conditional that the recovery certificate/decree passed by the Tribunal on this petition would not be executed against the assets of the Company without specific leave of this Court to that effect at that stage.

9. This petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.