The RDBFI Act, 1993 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Tribunal and the Recovery Officer in respect of debts payable to banks and financial institutions, and the distribution of proceeds should be made in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act.

P.C. Pant, J.

1. These objections have been filed on behalf of Indian Overseas Bank in Miscellaneous Company Application No. 8/2001 against the report No. 308/2004, dated 2-12-2003 of the Official Liquidator for distribution of claim to the Ex-workers and Financial Institutions under Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Board of Industries and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) recommended winding up of the company M/s. U.P. Chemical and Carbide Ltd. (hereinafter referred to 'UPCCL') before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the year 1994. The said High Court vide its order dated 19-7-1994 directed the winding up of UPCCL as no one opposed it nor company filed any appeal against the reference order of BIFR. Consequently, Official Liquidator under directions of the Court started taking steps for winding up of the company. After exchange of affidavits and counter-affidavit in the year 1996 the Official Liquidator sought permission to sell the assets of the company by auction. Meanwhile, the workers through their union filed application under Section 529A of the Companies Act for direction for payment of their dues. One of the secured creditors made an offer to purchase the assets of the company for Rs. 5.76 crores, but the first sale was made in favour of the highest bidder Sri V.K. Jain. From the record, it appears that the said sale was set aside and in 1996 IDBI also moved an application under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act for permission to continue with the suit. They have filed the suit for recovery of loan against the company before the Bombay Court. The record shows that in the year 1997 the Official Liquidator was directed to hand over the assets to PICUP and the said agency was directed to advertise and sell the assets of the company under liquidation. The record shows that this time, i.e., in the second sale one Sri I.P. Tantia made the highest bid in the sale. However, it appears that the said sale was also set aside. Lastly, the Court accepted the highest bid of Bharat Associates for Rs. 7 crores which amount was deposited with the Official Liquidator. Thereafter, the Official Liquidator filed report dated 2-12-2003 (numbered as 308/2003) for disbursement of claim to ex-workers and financial institutions as per the provisions of Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. The said report shows that the Official Liquidator has in all Rs. 7,00,50,000.00 with him for distribution while the Industrial Financial Corporation of India (IFCI) has a claim of Rs. 11,91,89,260.00, Indian Overseas Bank (present objector) has a claim of Rs. 1,65,12,174.00 and 379 Ex-Workers' claim was to the tune of Rs. 1,89,16,530.00 total amounting to Rs. 15,46,17,964.00. The Official Liquidator made the following submissions in his report for disbursement of the amount.

(I) The Official Liquidator may be permitted to declare dividend at the rate of 45.3 paise per rupee to the secured creditor and ex-workers.

(II) The Official Liquidator may be permitted to dispense with the settlement of claims of unsecured creditors in the absence of insufficient funds.

(III) The Official Liquidator may be permitted to dispense with the settlement of the list of contributories in absence of insufficient funds.

(IV) The Official Liquidator may also kindly be permitted for issue notices to the secured creditors and ex-workers given them one month and 15 days time to receive their payment.

(V) The Official Liquidator may also kindly be permitted to encash the F.D.Rs. for distribution and also to open a New Dividend Account with Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad.

(VI) Pass such order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. Against this report of the Official Liquidator the Indian Overseas Bank has filed the present objections.

4. The Indian Overseas Bank in its objections has stated that the objector Bank has earlier filed a suit before the Civil Court, Dehradun for reco