9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Krishnam Raju For the Respondent No.2: Sri M. Anil Kumar COMMON ORDER: Company Application No.366 of 2012 is filed to permit the authorised officer of the applicant-Bank to continue in possession of respondent No.2's movable and immovable properties till they are sold. Company Application No.367 of 2012 is filed by the same applicant for permitting its authorised officer to conduct sale of res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as he represents the workmen dues for which a pari pasu charge is held by him. This question, however, was considered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., v. Megnostar Telecommunications Co.App.No.58 of 2012, dated 17.09.2012. By its judgment, dated 17.09.2012, the Division Bench held that the ratio in Rajasthan Financial Corporation (1 supra) has no applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.36254 and 36255 of 2012 filed against the judgment in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (2 supra), wherein the following order is passed: "There is some inconsistency in the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs. Haryana C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant-bank is prepared to follow the same directions as were issued in Rajasthan Financial Corporation (1 supra). Accordingly, the applicant is permitted to sell the properties of the company in liquidation by scrupulously following the directions issued in Rajasthan Financial Corporation (1 supra). The valuation report, dated 19.11.2013, of Mr. Pradeep Kapaarthi, Chartered Engineer & Valuer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
