TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, and thereafter to proceed according to law as expeditiously as possible. - WRIT PETITION NO. 864 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION (LDDG.) NO. 280 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 19-4-2010 - F.I. REBELLO AND J.H. BHATIA, JJ. J.P. Cama and K.P. Anilkumar for the Petitioner. S.U. Kamdar, Satish S. Shetye, Deepak M. Thakkar, Ms. Pragne Thakkar for the Respondent. Mrs. Pai for Official Liquidator. N.G. Thakkar for Auction Purchaser. JUDGMENT F.I. Rebello, J. - Rule in both the petitions. As pleadings are complete, by consent of the parties, heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 864 of 2009 is a registered Trade Union, claiming to represent the employees of M/s. Navinon Limited, now in-liquidation and for which Official Liquidator of this Court has been appointed as the Official Liquidator. 3. By the present petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the sale of securities in favour of respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 4 which have been assigned to respondent No. 2 - Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the value of the Ranoli property is much higher than the rate which was mentioned in the te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dator to intimate to them the claims, of the workers which would rank Pari Passu with their secured claim at the earliest to enable them to proceed in the matter. 6. A few other facts may also be set out. The company-in-liquidation had mortgaged its properties, which are the subject-matter, of the present petition as also the property of Tarapur in favour of several financial institutions to secure repayment of loans advanced to the banks. One such financial institution was Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI). A company petition being Company Petition No. 1176 of 2001 came to be filed in this Court and by an Order dated 16-12-2005 the Company was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator of this Court was appointed as Official Liquidator of the Assets and Liabilities of the Company-in-liquidation. Respondent No. 2, Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) is a company constituted by the Government of India vide Trust Deed dated 24-9-2004 for acquiring the stressed and non-performing assets of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 had taken possession of the three immovable properties in pursuance of the powers vested under the Securitisation and Reconstructio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Official Liquidator on 22-1-2009. The Official Liquidator has not challenged the said sale. 9. In Company Application (Lodg.) No. 104 of 2009 moved by the Navinon Employees Forum, a declaration was sought that the assignment of the assets and debts by the Company-in-liquidation, the IDBI through SASF to PMC-Bank is illegal and void and also sought a direction against PMC- Bank not to take any further steps pursuant to the tender notice dated 20-12-2008. The Court noted that the main ground was that the asset was grossly under valued. The Court observed that in that event the Applicants have a remedy of filing an appeal under section 17 of the Securitization Act. The Court further observed that this is in view of the fact that proceedings have been adopted by the respondents under the said Act. It was also noted that the PMC-Bank did not dispute that the applicants have such a remedy. The Court further noted that assignment was challenged on the basis of a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Official Liquidator of APS Star Ind. Ltd. [O.J. Appeal No. 150 (Guj.) of 2007]. There were directions that the sale was not to be confirmed till ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er petition being Writ Petition No. 1231 of 2006 had been filed by Navinon Employees Forum where the grievance was made that their claims are pending before SASF and they have not yet been decided. This Court passed an order on 3-5-2006 directing SASF to consider the claims of the members of the petitioner and dispose them of according to law at any rate not later than 12 weeks from the date of the order. 13. The Chemical Mazdoor Sabha thereafter moved an application in March, 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and also took out a Misc. Application (St.) No. 30 of 2009 to challenge the sale. The main relief in the application is for the declaration of tender notice as illegal and applied for waiver of the stamp duty. By an order dated 16-3-2009 the Presiding Officer held that the applicants have to pay proper stamp duty as per clause ( d ) of the Notification dated 2-2-2007 and not Rs. 2,000 as claimed by the applicant under clause 2( e ) of the Government Notification dated 2-2-2007. On 24-3-2009 the applicants moved the Registrar praying for formal order as union/workmen were unable to pay Rs. 50,000 as stamp duty. 14. Both the petitions raise identical issues. The f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther directions. 16. On the facts of the present case, the question before us is, "Will the ratio of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court apply to the facts of the present case?" It appears that the Assignor bank there had assigned in favour of the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited various debts. A company application being Company Application No. 489 of 2006 had been filed which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 9-7-2007. Appeal No. 1589 of 2007 was preferred by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. In the appeal, various questions were formulated. One question was, whether the Company Court was right in expressing an opinion that separate stamp duty is required to be paid for each loan transaction as the same is a distinct transaction within the meaning of section 5 of the Stamp Act. In view of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act the Court held that the Company Court was right in so holding. The Appellant, the banking company had approached the Company Court seeking to be substituted in place of respondent No. 9 bank there. The basis of the application was the Deed of Assignment executed on 31-3-2008 by ICICI Bank Ltd. with Kotak Mahindra Bank Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition, the same is dismissed. 19. We, however, make it clear that dismissal of this petition will not in any way bar the remedy of the workers for recovery of their claims considering the provisions of section 13(9) of the Securitization Act. The proviso itself provides that the amount recovered from the sale of security assets shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of the Companies Act. The PMC-Bank Ltd. itself has noted that the workers have a pari passu claim under section 529A of the Companies Act. Considering the provisions, it is the Official Liquidator, who has now to take steps in terms of the proviso to section 13(9) of the Securitization Act. The workers thus will have to file their claim before the Official Liquidator who will ascertain the claim and considering the amount available distribute the same pro rata amongst the workers depending on their claims. Considering that the matter has been going on for a long time, the Official Liquidator is directed to invite the claims, if not already invited, and thereafter to proceed according to law as expeditiously as possible. 20. With the above observations, Rule in both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
