9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .68 sq.mtrs. situated at Revenue Survey No.197/P, 400/P and 401/P of mouje Budasan, Tal. Kadi, District Mehsana and Plot No.20 C admeasuring 1908 sq.mtrs. situated at Revenue Survey No.400, 402/paiki of mouje Budasan, Tal Kadi, District Mehsana belonging to M/s. Polo Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. (in liqn.) and permit the applicant to complete the process of sale of the said immovable properties under the provisions of the section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to recover the outstanding dues. (B) Be pleased to permit the applicant to continue with the actions taken under the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with concerned office of Registrar of Companies. The letter further provides that the applicant has also filed recovery suit with Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act, 2002') are in progress. The applicant, thereafter, has filed the present Company Application No.29 of 2020 with the above-mentioned prayers. 3. Mr. Bharat Jani, learned advocate for the applicant, at the outset, submitted that the issue is no longer res integra inasmuch as, the Apex Court in the case of Pegasus Assets Recons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Companies Act, 1956. Lastly, it is also prayed that the sale process may be finalised only after seeking confirmation order from this court, i.e. the sale shall be subject to confirmation by this court in the company proceedings. 5. Heard Mr. Bharat Jani, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Jeet J. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the opponent - Official Liquidator through video conference. 6. Undisputedly, the prayer of the applicant is being answered by the Apex Court in the case of Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited vs. Haryana Concast Limited and Another (supra) wherein, the Apex Court has observed in paragraphs 30 and 31 as under:- "30. ..........It is significant that as per sub-section (9) a sort of consen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no plausible reason as to take recourse to any provisions of the Companies Act and permit interference in the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act either by the Company Judge or the liquidator. As noted earlier, the Official Liquidator as a representative of the borrower company under winding up has to be associated, not for supplying any omission in the SARFAESI Act but because of express provisions therein as well as in the Rules. Hence the exercise of harmonizing that this Court had to undertake in the context of SFC Act or the RDB Act is no longer warranted in respect of SARFAESI Act vis-à-vis the Companies Act. 31. The aforesaid view commends itself to us also because of clear intention of the Parliament expressed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
