TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank Financial Services Ltd., respondent No. 2 herein. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. - formerly National Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. - respondent No. 1 in CW 1968/95 had floated 9% non-cumulative secure redeemable tax-free bonds (hereinafter, 9% bonds, for short). Respondent No. 2 had subscribed to the said 9% bonds of the face value of Rs. 40 crores in the year 1992. Soon thereafter, there was outbreak of security scan causing collapse of security market in shares, securities and bonds. The respondent No. 2 facing liquidity crunch wanted to dispose of the said bonds to fulfil its commitment elsewhere. The petitioner purchased 9% bonds of the face value of Rs. 40 crores for consideration from respondent No. 2. Relative letters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d its right of lien on the bonds in question for the default committed by respondent No. 2 and, therefore, it was not registering the bonds in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 also questioned the bona fides of the transaction between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and asked for detail of the payments by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. 7. As respondent No. 1 neither registered the bonds in favour of the petitioner, nor returned the same, nor did pay the accrued interest thereon to the petitioner, the petitioner approached the Cabinet Secretary through the Ministry of Finance, with the request to place the matter before the Committee of Secretaries for settlement or to permit the petitioner to approach the Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies Act, 1956, and therefore, the present petitioner was misconceived. 12. We have heard Mr. V.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohit Mathur, Advocate for petitioner in both the petitions. We have also heard Mr. J.C. Seth, Counsel for respondent No. 1 in CWP 1968/95 and Dr. A.M. Singhvi assisted by Mr. A.M. Ditta for respondent No. 1 in the CWP 560/95 on the preliminary objections. 13.So far as the first objection is concerned, we are of the opinion that the same cannot be sustained. 13.1 In M/s. ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = JT 1991 (4) SC 158 the Supreme Court directed the Govt. of India to set up a Committee to ensure that no litigation to which Central Government and Publi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Committee on Disputes, Cabinet Secretariat (Litigation Cell), brought on record by respondent No. 1 were not the minutes of the meeting of the High Power Committee constituted by the Central Govt. pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court in ONGC's case, but we are not prepared to accept that submission in view of the statement made by Mr. Madan Lokur, learned Standing Counsel for the UOI that the minutes so brought on record of the Court were of the meeting, of the High Court Power Committee constituted pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court. Still we do not think that the petition could be dismissed as not maintainable because of want of clearance to the petitioner from the Committee that we say for two reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debenture-holders. Sub-section 12 of Section 2 defines debentures to include bonds, inter alia. 14.1 It is submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that the remedy so provided is an effective alternate remedy. The petitioner can seek complete redressal of its grievances from the Company Law Board. The Board exercised power of the Court and can also hold inquiry or investigation even if there are disputed questions. Writ petition will not be an appropriate forum because of the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy more so if there are a disputed questions of fact arising for decision in which case this Court would certainly not entertain the petition in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 14.2 There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... putes as are raised in the present petition does lie within the jurisdiction of Company Law Board through respondent No. 1 does not waive its right to raise all other legal objections such as on the ground of limitation etc. or on the merits of the petition. Mr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 in the other CWP has joined in making that statement. 14.5 We are of the opinion that the disputes raised by the petitioner and relief sought for herein can appropriately be raised and sought for before the Company Law Board under Section 111 of the Companies Act which is an alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. 14.6The present petitions before us are therefore liable to be dismissed as not maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
