Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2019 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1741 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTRecovery of debts - quadripartite agreement - It was alleged in the application that without a prior written approval from the petitioner bank, the defendant/opposite party no.6 surreptitiously sold and transferred the property-in-question to an undisclosed third party purchaser behind the back of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the Debt Recovery Tribunal derives its power from the statute and the powers and procedures have been prescribed under Sections 17 and 19 of the said Act. Prima facie it is found that Section 19 (25) cannot be interpreted, to mean that the Tribunal had the power to decide on issues beyond what had fallen for adjudication under Section 17 of the said Act. It is also seen that the Tribunal had disposed of the application filed by the opposite party no. 6 by passing an order in the nature of a final relief thereby treating the letter dated February 2, 2016 as withdrawn. It is also true that the application filed by the opposite party no. 6 praying for deletion of its name with a further prayer for cancellation of the letter dated February 2, 2016 upon securing the amount has been disposed of, which means that the question whether the tribunal had the authority to cancel and/or treat that letter as withdrawn was no more left for adjudication. This point was overlooked by the learned appellate tribunal. Let this matter be listed in the daily supplementary list on November 29, 2019.
|