Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2000 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (9) TMI 928 - SUPREME COURTWhether the suit No. 410 of 1985 by the Bank which was disposed by judgment dated 29-3-1994 and which judgment was set aside by the Bench on 11-8-1998 and remanded to the Single Judge, could not be treated as pending immediately before the commencement of the Act on 27-4-1994 (in West Bengal) and whether it could not be transferred to the Recovery Tribunal ? What is the combined effect of sections 18 and 31 and of the Act on pending proceedings ? Whether the pendency of suit No. 272 of 1985 filed by the debtor- company against the Bank for specific performance and for perpetual and mandatory injunctions raising common issues between parties in both these suits was a sufficient reason for retention of the Bank’s suit No. 410 of 1985 on the original side of the High Court to be tried along with the Suit No. 272 of 1985 filed by the debtor- company ? Whether the suit No. 272 of 1985 filed by the debtor-company was, in substance, one in the nature of a "counter-claim" against the Bank and was one which also fell within the special Act by reason of section 19(8) to (11) of the Act (as introduced by Amending Act 1/2000) and if that be so, whether it could still be successfully pleaded by the respondent-company that the pendency of the company’s suit 272 of 1985 was a ground for retention of Bank’s Suit No. 410 of 1985 on the original side of the High Court ? Held that:- Both the suits, the one by the Bank against the respondent (suit 410 of 1985) and the other by the debtor-against the Bank (suit 272 of 1985) which raises claims or pleas in the nature of set-off or counter-claim are interconnected. Direct the Bank’s suit 410 of 1985 to be transferred by the Registrar, Calcutta High Court to the appropriate Tribunal under the Act. So far as the debtor-company’s suit 272 of 1985 is concerned, action has to be taken likewise by the Registrar in the light of our finding which finding has become necessary in view of the contention on behalf of the debtor-company before us and that appropriate orders will be passed in relation to suit 272 of 1985 expeditiously, at any rate, within one month from today.
|