Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2013 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 406 - SC - Companies LawWhether the Company Judge has jurisdiction at the instance of the Official Liquidator to set aside the auction or sale held by the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993(RDB) or whether the Official Liquidator is required to follow the route as engrafted under the RDB Act by filing an appeal assailing the auction and the resultant confirmation of sale - Held that:- The Official Liquidator whose association is mandatorily required can indubitably be regarded as a person aggrieved relating to the action taken by the Recovery Officer which would include the manner in which the auction is conducted or the sale is confirmed. Under these circumstances, the Official Liquidator cannot even take recourse to the doctrine of election. It is difficult to conceive that there are two remedies. It is well settled in law that if there is only one remedy, the doctrine of election does not apply and the Official Liquidator has only one remedy, i.e., to challenge the order passed by the Recovery Officer before the DRT. Be it noted, an order passed under Section 30 of the RDB Act by the DRT is appealable. Thus, we are inclined to conclude and hold that the Official Liquidator can only take recourse to the mode of appeal and further appeal under the RDB Act and not approach the Company Court to set aside the auction or confirmation of sale when a sale has been confirmed by the Recovery Officer under the RDB Act. Taking notice of the decision in M.V. Janardhan Reddy (2008 (5) TMI 401 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) wherein the sale was aside by the Company Judge. It may be stated here that the Company Court had imposed a condition that the permission of the Company Court shall be obtained before the sale of the properties, immoveable or moveable, is confirmed or finalized. On the aforesaid basis, this Court opined that when the bank was permitted to go ahead with the proposed sale of the assets of the company under liquidation by way of auction but such sale was subject to confirmation by the Company Court and all the parties were aware about the condition as to confirmation of sale by the Company Court, it was not open to the Recovery Officer to confirm the sale and, therefore, the sale was set aside by the Company Court, being in violation of the order. Thus, the facts in the said case were absolutely different and further this Court did not deal with the jurisdiction of the Company Court vis-à-vis DRT as the said issue really did not arise. Hence, it is not an authority for the proposition that the Official Liquidator can approach the Company Court to set aside the auction or sale conducted by the Recovery Officer of the DRT. Thus to conclude the Official Liquidator can prefer an appeal before the DRT. As he was prosecuting the lis in all genuineness before the Company Court and defending the order before the Division Bench, four weeks' time to file an appeal after following the due procedure is allowed. On such an appeal being preferred, the DRT shall deal with the appeal in accordance with law.
|