Indian Bank vs Elnet Ltd & Ors

S. Ravi Kumar, Chairperson

These two Appeals are disposed of by a Common Order as point involved in both the Appeals is one and the same.

RA 104/2018 is filed challenging Order dated 11.02.2015 of DRT-II, Chennai in OA 186/2014. MA 13/2018 is filed questioning Order dated 07.06.2016 in RA 1/2016 in OA 186/2014 of DRT-II, Chennai.

Appellant Bank herein filed OA 186/2014 for recovery of Rs.3,39,07,806/- due as on 30.04.2002 under non-convertible debenture with interest at 16% p.a. with half yearly rests. Tribunal below on a consideration of facts with reference to evidence on record, allowed OA for a sum of Rs.3,39,07,806/-with simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of OA till realization and directed Appellant Bank to give credit for a sum of Rs.1,43,20,354/- paid by Official Liquidator by sale of Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties towards loan account on the respective date. Aggrieved by said direction of Tribunal below to give credit for a sum of Rs.1,43,20,354/-, Appeal number RA 104/2018 is filed.

Appellant Bank herein filed RA 1/2016 before Tribunal below to review the Order dated 11.02.2015 in OA 186/2014 on the ground that direction to give credit for a sum of Rs.1,43,20,354/- is a mistake apparent on the face of record, Tribunal below dismissed said Application holding that the same is not an error and Application is not filed within statutory period. Aggrieved by that order, MA 13/2018 is filed.

Appellant Bank and 3rd Respondent Bank filed Written Arguments and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have not contested the Appeals and only Appellant Bank submitted oral arguments.

According to Advocate for Appellant Bank, Appellant Bank is a Debenture Trustee and OA 186/2014 is filed for recovery of amount due to Appellant, but in the OA, Tribunal below while considering the report of Official Liquidator, directed Appellant to give credit for a sum of Rs.1,43,20,354/-, but said amount pertains to the claim of Bank of Baroda in OA 174/1999, which is shown in tabular form mentioned in para 4 of Report filed by Official Liquidator. It is submitted that Indian Bank as a lender also filed OA 386/2015 (old OA 871/1998), which was also decided by DRT-II, Chennai and money received by Indian Bank as shown in the report of Official Liquidator is treated as money received by Appellant herein, and that is a mistake on the part of Tribunal below, therefore, direction to that extent is to be set aside, and Appeal has to be allowed. It is submitted for the same relief, Review Petition is filed, but Tribunal below dismissed the same, on the ground of limitation and that Order also is to be set aside because there is error apparent on the face of record. Advocate for Appellant Bank only reiterated what all mentioned in Written Arguments.

As already referred to above, no oral submissions are made on behalf of 3rd Respondent Bank, but as per Written Submissions of 3rd Respondent, it has no say in the matter, and it is only a formal party to Appeal and no relief is claimed against them.

I have perused the material papers including impugned Orders dated 11.02.2015 and 07.06.2016. I have also perused the Report of Official Liquidator dated 01.02.2013.

In the impugned Order dated 11.02.2015, at para 4, it is recorded that Official Liquidator filed Report dated 01.02,2013 wherein it is mentioned that a sum of Rs.1,43,20,354/- was paid to Appellant herein as per orders of Hon’ble High Court in C.A. 552/2009 in C.P. 514/2000 dated 22.04.2009 and further payment, if any, would be made as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court. The main grievance of Appellant Bank is that Rs.1,43,20,354/-, is in respect of Bank of Baroda, i.e. 3rd Respondent Bank herein, but Tribunal below wrongly took that amount as that of Appellant, and gave such direction. Advocate for Appellant Bank mainly drawn my attention to para 4 of Report of the Official Liquidator to the tabular form wherein five creditors are shown, who are Bank of Baroda, Indian Bank ARM Branch, IDBI, Standard Chartered Bank and Workmen.

It is not in dispute that Official Liquidator filed his Report in OA of Appellant, which is evident from the Report itself. In para 5 of Report, Official Liquidator recorded as follows:

“ 5. That the applicant bank’s claim of Rs.17,90,04,428/- was admitted and a dividend of 8 paise in a rupee i.e. Rs.1,43,20,354/- was paid to the applicant bank as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court order vide C.A. 552/2009 in C.P. 514/2000 dated 22.04.2009.

6…………….”

From a reading of above para, it is clear that Rs.1,43,20,354/-is towards payment to the Appellant, and other payments in respect of other four creditors are referred to in para 4. If anything is wrong in the Report of Official Liquidator, remedy of the Appellant is elsewhere, but not before DRT or this Tribunal. When Report of Official Liquidator is crystal clear as to the money paid to Appellant as per orders of Hon’ble High Court dated 22.04.2009, which was taken into consideration by Tribunal below, the contention of Appellant Bank that it is a mistake on the part of Tribunal below, cannot be accepted at any stretch of imagination.

In the Review Order at para 4, Tribunal below extracted above referred para 5 from the Report of Official Liquidator and specifically stated that final order in OA is passed based on the Report of Official Liquidator. It is also recorded that Appellant has not objected to the Report of Official Liquidator. So, when the Report of Official Liquidator is crystal clear, finding fault with Tribunal below, cannot be accepted, and Appellant Bank, without proper examination of Official Liquidator’s Report, filed these two Appeals. At least, after reading Order dated 07.06.2016 in RA 1/2016, Appellant Bank should have realized that Orders in OA are passed on the basis of Para 5 of Liquidator’s Report, but not with reference to Para 4 of that Report. There is no mistake on the part of DRT, on the other hand, mistake is on the part of Appellant Bank in not properly reading the Report of Official Liquidator.

For the above reasons, I am of the considered view that both the Appeals are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Appeals RA 104/ 2018 and MA 13/2018 are dismissed with costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.