TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-11-2001, the Official Liquidator was permitted by this Court to sell the assets and properties of the said Company situated at Kelzar, District Wardha, and Singroli (M.P.). The Official Liquidator realized a sum of Rs. 40 crores by sale of the assets and properties of the said Company. The sale was confirmed by this Court on 3-10-2007 in favour of the highest bidder, namely M/s. Cozy Properties Pvt. Ltd., and the purchaser had deposited the entire amount with the Official Liquidator. However, the proceedings are pending before the Apex Court in SLP involving the question of setting aside the sale, payment of costs and expenses. One more appeal filed by the Collector, Wardha, against the order passed by this Court on the question of unearned income from the sale of the Government properties is pending before the Division Bench of this Court. 2. The ICICI Bank Limited, Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) and IFCI Limited claiming themselves to be the secured creditors of the Company-in-liquidation with first charge on the assets and properties, had filed the Original Application No. 14 of 2003 on 18-11-2002, invoking the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bts Recovery Tribunal passed in Original Application No. 414 of 2001. The details of the claim were as under: 1 Outstanding as on 1-10-1999 Rs. 2,14,45,381.86 2 Interest charged up to 15-2-2001 Rs. 57,77,262.15 3 Notice Charges Rs. 2,000.00 Total Rs. 2,72,24,644.00 The Bank of Maharashtra, which was also held to be the second charge holder, also filed an affidavit of proof of debt on 4-8-2005. It claimed an amount of Rs.1,98,39,779.58 towards principal and Rs. 94,74,176 towards interest from 1-1-1999 to 31-8-2001, on the basis of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal passed on 31-8-2005. It also laid other claims. 5. The first charge holder-IFCI Limited filed its affidavit of proof of debt dated 20-9-2007, in which it claimed a total amount of Rs. 3,22,26,201 as on 18-11-2002 and the amount of interest, at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 18-11-2002 till its realization, as per the judgment and order dated 31-8-2005 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The another first charge holder IDBI, laid its claim on 9-8-2005 and additional claim on 11-8-2005 by filing an affidavit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e secured assets. ( b )This Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct the official Liquidator that the net sale proceeds from the sale of assets of the company in liquidation, after reimbursement of expenses incurred by other secured creditors, if any, together with the interest earned on the sale proceeds, be distributed to the Applicant on a pari pasu basis with other secured creditors having a 1st charge on the assets of the company in liquidation, in satisfaction of the Recovery Certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. ( c )Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Company Application this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct the Official Liquidator to release such ad hoc amount as this Court deems fit and proper towards the adjudicated claim of the Applicant; and ( d )For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer ( a ) and ( c ) hereto. ( e )For costs of the Application." By an order dated 11-7-2008 passed by this Court in Company Application No. 84 of 2008, the Official Liquidator was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 67,27,862 towards reimbursement of expenses incurred for the protection and sale of secured assets of the company under li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Liquidator, I find that as the date of disbursement is still not certain, there is no point in issuing any advertisement at this stage. However, the official liquidator is permitted to declare the dividend as per prayer clause ( a ) with notice of its actual disbursement after appropriate orders by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in pending matters. In view of this, O.L.R. is disposed of." 9. The Official Liquidator thereafter conducted the meetings on 14-10-2008 and 12-2-2009. In the meeting dated 12-2-2009, the Official Liquidator determined the claims as on the date of the liquidation, i.e., 2-8-2001, and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below : Secured Creditors Principal Interest Total (1) Kotak Mahindra 1,20,28,560 4,67,12,273 5,87,40,833 (2) I.D.B.I. 1,81,25,000 4,62,82,440 6,44,07,440 (3) I.F.C.I. 83,14,828 1,95,48,951 2,78,63,779 (4) Bank of Maharashtra 1,97,66,602 1,19,39,779 3,17,06,381 (5) Bank of India 2,14,45,381 79,24,858 2,93,70,239 Gross Total : 21,20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 19(22) of the RDB Act. According to them, the Official Liquidator and the Company under liquidation were both the party-respondents in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the certificate issued under section 19(22) of the RDB Act by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 31-8-2005 is binding upon them, as they have not challenged it before the Appellate Tribunal under the RDB Act. According to them, the Official Liquidator had no option but to honour the certificate as it is without any modification or alteration. They further submit that the first charge holders remained outside the liquidation proceedings and hence the Official Liquidator had no competency to adjudicate upon their claims on the basis of the provisions of rules 156 and 179 of the said Rules to restrict the payment of interest to 4 per cent per annum. According to them, the provisions of rules 156 and 179 of the said Rules were not applicable to those secured creditors, who remained out side the liquidation proceedings. 12. It is the further submission of Shri Jaiswal and Shri Sohoni, the learned counsels, that the Official Liquidator has, in his communication dated 20-2-2009 impugned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... secured creditors is to approach the Company Court for release of the balance amount covered by the certificate. 14. Dr. Anjan De, the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator, has urged that the Official Liquidator has acted in accordance with the provisions of rules 154, 156 and 179 of the said Rules while accepting or rejecting the claims of the secured creditors. According to him, rule 154 of the said Rules does not permit the Official Liquidator to accept the claims of the secured creditors after the date of the order of winding-up was passed on 2-8-2001 and, therefore, the Official Liquidator has restricted the claims to the date of the order of winding-up of the Company. He further submits that rules 156 and 179 of the said Rules do not permit the Official Liquidator to grant interest exceeding 4 per cent per annum and hence the Official Liquidator was right in restricting the claim of interest to 4 per cent per annum. In view of this, it is the submission of Dr. Anjan De that the Official Liquidator has asked the secured creditors to get their claims for the balance amount from the Company Court. According to him, no fault can be found with the action of the Official ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holders have also got their claims accepted from the Official Liquidator in exercise of his powers under rule 163 of the said Rules up to the date of the order of winding-up of the Company and to the extent of 4 per cent interest in terms of rules 156 and 179 of the said Rules. They have not adopted any procedure for execution of the certificate, as contemplated by sections 25, 28 and 29 of the RDB Act. Thus, the entire conduct of the first charge holders amounts to relinquishment of their securities in terms of the proviso to section 529(1) of the said Act and hence the waiver and estoppel operate against them to ask for payment of their dues in terms of the certificate. 17. From the rival submissions made by the parties, the following questions fall for consideration of this Court in all these appeals : (1)Whether the secured creditors, having obtained a certificate under section 19(22) of the RDB Act for recovery of their dues as the first charge holders from the Company under liquidation, are entitled to enforce their full claim under the certificate, in the proceedings lodged under rule 163 of the said Rules before the Official Liquidator ? (2)Whether the official Liqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determined the priority of the secured creditors and the amount, which each one of them is entitled to recover from the Company under liquidation, as on 30-9-2007. It is also not in dispute that the first charge holders are held entitled to get interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the OA, i.e., 18-11-2002, till the realization of the debts. The judgment and order dated 31-8-2005 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal has become final and binding upon the Official Liquidator and the Company under liquidation. The Official Liquidator has determined the liabilities of the Company under liquidation on 12-2-2009, in accordance with the provisions of sections 529 and 529A of the said Act and rules 154, 156 and 159 of the said Rules. In this factual background, the controversy needs to be considered. As regards Question No. (1) : 19. The first charge holders have lodged their claims on the basis of the certificate under section 19(22) of the RDB Act, in the proceedings under rule 163 of the said Rules before the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator has partially accepted the claims of all such secured creditors as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Liquidator is empowered under the said provisions of the RDB Act, to enforce such certificate nor rule 163 of the said Rules is prescribed as one of the modes for execution of such certificates under sections 25, 28 and 29 of the RDB Act. Though, the Official Liquidator is bound by the judgment and order dated 31-8-2005 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the certificate under section 19(22) of the RDB Act, he would be answerable in respect of it, in the proceedings for execution of such certificate, if initiated by the secured creditors under the provisions of the RDB Act. But when it comes to the acceptance or rejection of the proof of debts under rule 163 of the said Rules, the Official Liquidator will have to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules and he can neither act in deviation of it, nor can grant the claims, which are not permissible under the said Rules. The first charge holders/secured creditors are, therefore, not entitled to enforce their full claim under the certificate, in the proceedings lodged under rule 163 of the said Rules before the Official Liquidator. The question No. 1 is answered accordingly. Hence, no fault ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proof, wholly or in part, he shall state the grounds of the rejection to the creditor in Form No. 69. Notice of admission of proof shall be in Form No. 70." "179. Payment of subsequent interest. In the event of there being a surplus after payment in full of all the claims admitted to proof, creditors whose proofs have been admitted shall be paid interest from the date of the winding-up order or of the resolution as the case may be, up to the date of the declaration of the final dividend, at a rate not exceeding 4 per cent per annum, on the admitted amount of the claim, after adjusting against the said amount the dividends declared as on the date of the declaration of each dividend." Rule 163 of the said Rules deals with the acceptance or rejection of the proof by the Liquidator either wholly or in part, which is to be communicated to the creditor concerned. The Official Liquidator is, therefore, competent to accept the claim in part also and hence it cannot be said that he has acted without jurisdiction in rejecting part of the claim. The said Rule is placed in the chapter of winding-up proceedings by the Court. The Official Liquidator is, therefore, bound by the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as it is. On the contrary, the claim in the certificate is accepted to the extent it is in conformity with rules 154, 156 and 179 of the said Rules. The Official Liquidator is neither competent to travel beyond the scope of the said Rules, nor is conferred with the powers under sections 25 to 30 of the RDB Act, to execute the said certificate. In view of this, there is no question of any adjudication by the Official Liquidator when he restricts the claims of the secured creditors in conformity with the provisions of the said Rules. What is the most important aspect of it, is that the acceptance of the claim of the secured creditor by the Official Liquidator under rule 163 of the said Rules, is not binding upon the secured creditor and it is open for him either to accept it or refuse to accept it. Even if he accepts it or refused to accept it, his right to get the certificate under section 19(22) of the RDB Act executed under sections 25 to 30 of the RDB Act is in no manner taken away, altered or modified for recovery of the full amount of such certificate. In view of this, there is no question of any inconsistency, as contemplated by section 34 of the RDB Act, and hence the said pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impose. (2) The Tribunal shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to entertain, or dispose of- ( a )any suit or proceeding by or against the company; ( b )any claim made by or against the company (including claims by or against any of its branches in India); ( c )any application made under section 391 by or in respect of the company; ( d )any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or arise in course of the winding up of the company; whether such suit or proceeding has been instituted, or is instituted, or such claim or question has arisen or arises or such application has been made or is made before or after the order for the winding up of the company, or before or after the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960 (65 of 1960). (3)** ** ** (4) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall apply to any proceeding pending in appeal before the Supreme Court or a High Court." Sub-section (1) of section 446 of the said Act creates a bar for institution of suit or other legal proceedings after pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals. (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. (2) An Appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act." Section 19(19) and section 19(22) of the RDB Act confer powers upon the Debts Recovery Tribunal to issue the certificate of recovery and the same being relevant, are reproduced below : "19. Application to the Tribunal. ... (19) Where a certificate of recovery is issued against a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Tribunal may order the sale proceeds of such company to be distributed among its secured creditors in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and to pay the surplus, if any, to the company. (22) The Presiding Officer shall issue a certificate under his signature on the basis of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, stayed sale of assets and disbursement of monies realized in some of the sales already effected. This was the subject-matter of challenge in appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and it was held that the respondent-Canara Bank does not belong to the class of secured creditor covered by section 529A(1)( b ) of the said Act. 28. The first question, which arose in the decision of the Apex Court, cited ( supra ), was : whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under section 17 of the RDB Act in the matter of passing the order of adjudication. The second question was whether for initiation of various proceedings under the RDB Act, leave of the Company Court was necessary under section 537 of the said Act before a winding-up order is passed against the Company. The third question was whether the Company Court can pass an order of stay of the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in exercise of its powers under section 442 of the said Act. The fourth question involved was whether the provisions of the RDB Act shall override the provisions of the said Act. Lastly, a distinction was mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly state that the RDB Act overrides other law as to the extent of inconsistency'. In our opinion, the prescription of an exclusive Tribunal both for adjudication and execution is a procedure clearly inconsistent with realisation of these debts in any other manner." '25. Thus, the adjudication of liability and the recovery of the amount of execution of the certificate are respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the Recovery Officer and no other Court or authority much less the Civil Court or the Company Court can go into the said questions relating to the liability and the recovery except as provided in the Act. Point 1 is decided accordingly'. ..." Thus, it has been held in clear terms that the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under sections 17 and 18 of the RDB Act is exclusive so far as the question of adjudication of liability and execution of the certificate by the Recovery Officer is concerned. It has further been held that no other Court or authority much less the Civil Court or the Company Court can go into the said question relating to the liability and recovery, except as provided in the Act. 30. The next question regardi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found that the 1985 Act is a general statute and the 1951 statute is a special one'. Therefore, in view of section 34 of the RDB Act, the said Act overrides the Companies Act, to the extent there is anything inconsistent between the Acts." "49. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that at the stage of adjudication under section 17 and execution of the certificate under section 25 etc. the provisions of the RDB Act, 1993 confer exclusive jurisdiction in the Tribunal and the Recovery Officer in respect of debts payable to Banks and financial institutions and there can be no interference by the Company Court under section 442 read with section 537 or under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. In respect of the monies realised under the RDB Act, the question of priorities among the Banks and financial institutions and other creditors can be decided only by the Tribunal under the RDB Act and in accordance with section 19(19) read with section 529A of the Companies Act and in no other manner. The provisions of the RDB Act, 1993 are to the above extent inconsistent with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the latter Act has to yield to the provisions of the former. This pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal) and claim priority over the other creditors for release of amounts out of the other monies lying in the Company Court (here, the Tribunal). This limited priority is declared in section 529A(1) but it is restricted only to the extent specified in clause ( b ) of section 529A(1). The said provision refers to sub-clause ( c ) of the proviso to section 529(1) and it is necessary to understand the scope of the said provision." "67. In our opinion, the words so much of the debt due to such secured creditor as could not be realised by him by virtue of the foregoing provisions of the proviso' obviously mean the amount taken away from the private realisation of the secured creditor by the liquidator by way of enforcing the charge for workmen's due under clause ( c ) of the proviso to section 529(1) ratebly' against each secured creditor. To that extent, the secured creditor - who has stood outside the winding up and who has lost a part of the monies otherwise covered by security - can come before the Tribunal to reimburse himself from out of other monies available in the Tribunal, claiming priority over all creditors, by virtue of section 529A(1)( b )." It is thus apparent that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding distribution of the assets of the company-in-liquidation." Thus, it has been held that the secured creditor can approach the Company Court for appropriate directions regarding realization of its securities consistent with the relevant provisions of the said Act regarding distribution of the assets of the Company under liquidation. No doubt, in the present case, the claims of the secured creditors have been adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the RDB Act. However, that would not alter the position in respect of the applicability of the aforesaid ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court, for the reason that when the secured creditors stay outside the winding-up proceedings but approach the Company Court, they stand only in the shoes of the secured creditors entitled to enforce their securities consistent with the relevant provisions of the said Act regarding distribution of the assets of the Company under liquidation. 34. The third judgment of the Apex Court, relevant in the present case, in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leather Ltd. [2006] 67 SCL 383 (SC). After referring to its earlier judgment in Allahabad Bank's case ( supra ), referred to above, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered and decided by the Company Court. ( v )For institution or continuing proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal either under section 17 or before the Recovery Officer under sections 25 to 29 of the RDB Act, no leave of the Company Court, as contemplated by sections 446(1) and 537 of the said Act is necessary. ( vi )In case of any inconsistency between the provisions of the said Act and the RDB Act, the provisions of the RDB Act shall prevail. This position holds good during the pendency of the winding-up petition against the debtor-Company and also after the order of winding-up is passed. 36. Keeping in view the law, as aforesaid, laid down by the Apex Court, it has to be held that the Company Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 446 of the said Act, can entertain and decide the claims of the secured creditors, who have obtained the certificate of recovery under section 19(22) of the RDB Act only to the extent they are consistent with the provisions of section 529A and 529(1)( c ) of the said Act and rules 154, 156 and 179 of the said Rules. The reason is that such creditors stand in the shoes of the secured creditors entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. 39. The contention as aforesaid cannot be accepted, for the reason that if the Company Court has no jurisdiction under section 446 of the said Act to go into the question of execution of certificate, the question of exercising inherent powers under rule 9 of the said Rules does not arise. The question whether the secured creditors have lost their security or not, or whether the assets and properties transferred can be attached or not, can be gone into only in the execution proceedings by the Recovery Officer under the RDB Act and it is not proper for this Court to express any opinion on that question, so as to prejudice the contentions of either of the parties. Not only that, but the Recovery Officer has power under sub-section (2) of section 28 of the RDB Act to require any person from whom an amount is due to the defendant in recovery certificate to deduct such amount and credit it to the account of the Recovery Officer. If the Recovery Officer, after dealing with all such relevant aspects, approaches this Court, as required by sub-section (4) of section 28 of the RDB Act, then only this Court can exercise jurisdiction. In other words, the exercise of jurisdiction by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Official Liquidator were the parties, wherein it has been held that the amount is secured and the secured creditors are the charge-holders. He submits that even before the Official Liquidator, along with the affidavit of proof of claims, the secured creditors have filed the copies of registration of charge issued by the Registrar of Companies, and this fact has never been disputed by the Official Liquidator. 42. Alternatively, Shri Jaiswal submits that the registration of charge and priority of claims is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the RDB Act and its decision having become final, the same cannot be reopened in these proceedings. He further submits that in fact acting on the basis of these certificates, the Official Liquidator has determined the amount payable to the secured creditors. According to him, though such determination is disputed by the secured creditors, it is not open for the Official Liquidator to re-open such determination with a view to reduce the claims of the secured creditors. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Indian Bank v. Official Liquidator, Chemmeens Exports (P.) Ltd. [1998] 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for registration in the manner required under the Act within a period of thirty days after the date of its creation, it shall be void against the Liquidator and any creditor of the Company. 44. The questions whether the charge is registered or there is a non-compliance of section 125(1) of the said Act, are the disputed questions of fact. In fact, the determination by the Official Liquidator under rule 163 of the said Rules by the communication dated 20-2-2009, impugned in the appeals, is on the basis that the charge is registered. The Official Liquidator himself has produced the copies of the certificates of registration of the charges on record. Hence, the registration of charges by the Registrar of Companies is not disputed. 45. What has to be seen is the non-compliance of sub-section (1) of section 125 of the said Act. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 17 of the RDB Act, has delivered its judgment and order on 31-8-1995 recording the finding that the charges of outstandings have been secured by the deeds of hypothecation and the mortgage of the property. It has also decided the question as to what extent the secured creditors ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities under clause ( d ) of sub-section (2). We wish to make it clear that under section 446, no power is conferred on the Company Court to declare a decree of the competent court void - a prayer which is made by the Official Liquidator in the application out of which this appeal arises-so to that extent the application filed by the Liquidator in the Company Court is not maintainable." In the aforesaid case, a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit was passed, based on an unregistered charge, however in the present case, the property is mortgaged, the charge is also registered, and a certificate under section 19(22) of the RDB Act has been issued. Hence, the aforesaid judgment applies with greater force. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, it is apparent that the judgment and order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is binding upon the Official Liquidator and no plea inconsistent with such judgment and order can be raised by the Official Liquidator while deciding the question of priorities under clause ( d ) of sub-section (2) of section 446 of the said Act. It has been held that under section 446, no power is conferred upon the Company Court to declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r enforcement of the certificate. If there are facts and circumstances indicating relinquishment or surrender of security, then this question can be raised and decided in the proceedings for execution of certificate under section 25 or 28 of the RDB Act, if instituted by the secured creditors, and it cannot be gone into by the Company Court under section 446 of the said Act. The jurisdiction of the Company Court to deal with this question is ousted. Question No. (5) is, therefore, answered accordingly. 50. The Official Liquidator has declared the dividend as per the provision of sub-section (2) of section 529A of the said Act by accepting the claims of the secured creditors to the extent they are consistent with the provisions of the said Act and the said Rules. However, in view of the fact that the matter is already pending before the Apex Court, it would not be proper at this stage to permit actual disbursement of dividend, though this Court by an order dated 6-3-2009 has permitted the Official Liquidator to declare such dividend. In fact, in the order dated 6-3-2009, reproduced earlier, this Court has made it clear that the actual disbursement shall be after the appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Rules. ( iv )Company Application No. 84 of 2008 filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Company Application No. 377 of 2010 filed by Bank of India, Company Application No. 146 of 2008 filed by Bank of Maharashtra, Company Application Nos.153 of 2008 and 530 of 2011 filed by IFCI Ltd., and Company Application Nos.154 of 2008 and 533 of 2011 filed by IDBI Ltd., are all dismissed, to the extent the claim is made for enforcement of the certificate issued under section 19(22) of the RDB Act. ( v )It will be open for the secured creditors to adopt all such other proceedings as are available for enforcement of their full claims on the basis of the certificates issued under section 19(22) of the RDB Act, in accordance with law, and none of the observations made by this Court shall come in their way. ( vi )The contention of the Official Liquidator for reduction of the claims determined on 12-2-2009 under rule 163 of the Company (Court) Rules on the ground that the claims of the secured creditors be declared as void against the Official Liquidator as per the provisions of section 125 of the Companies Act, cannot be entertained by the Company Court in the proceedings under section 446 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
