TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 993 (hereinafter referred to as 1993 Act ), as well as the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), dated 6-4-1988, it was submitted by Mr. Chaudhary, that the plaintiff is covered as an "Institution" established by the State Government as for its object the "financing of industrial concerns". According to learned Counsel, by necessary implication plaintiff shall be deemed to be a public financial institution ; within the meaning of section 2( h ) of 1993 Act, and section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956. Thus, according to Mr. Chaudhary, this Court cannot entertain and try this suit. 3. All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Balwant Kukreja, learned Counsel. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) supra. 6. What follows from this is that, plaintiff becoming a deemed Financial Corporation under section 46(1), and that such of the provisions as are covered by the notification become applicable. In addition to this when a reference is made to section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956, what follows from it is, that under sub-section (1) of this section certain financial institutions have been named as "public financial institutions". Where the Central Government wanted to specify other institutions, and those having been created under some Central Act, then by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 4A ( supra ), such institutions have been again notified. A perusal of the provisions of Companies Act clearly indicates that beside other in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e plaintiff is not an institution specified by the Central Government as a financial institution in exercise of its power either under section 2( h ) of the Act or 4A of the Companies Act. Evidently, the plaintiff is also not one of the public financial institutions as specified in sections 4A(1)( i ) to ( v ) of the Companies Act. Thus, the plaintiff is not one of such financial institutions which has to lay its claim for recovery of debts from its debtors before the Tribunal under section 17 of the Act, therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendants." (p. 38) 10. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that in this decision impa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
