State Bank of India vs M/s Vee Aar Polymers Pvt. Ltd

R. D. Khare, Chairperson

The present recall application has been filed by the respondents/applicants under section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recalling/reviewing the order dated 27.10.2023, by which the appeal filed by the appellant-State Bank of India was allowed by this Appellate Tribunal and the case was remanded back to the Tribunal below for reconsidering and deciding the matter afresh.

Learned counsels for the parties were heard and the case was reserved for orders vide order dated 14.03.2024 by this Appellate Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the respondents/borrowers-recall applicants submitted that he has no objection to the order passed by this Tribunal, which is sought to be recalled. The learned counsel further submitted that the appeal, which was filed on behalf of the State Bank of India, in which the Kotak Mahindra Bank was also party, was decided ex-parte, whereas the copy of appeal had never been served upon the respondents-recall applicants, when the Vee Aar Polymers was common party. The learned counsel also submitted that the Kotak Mahindra Bank had filed a writ petition no. 16/2024, in which the same counsel, who had filed the present appeal, had appeared before the Hon’ble Nainital High Court, which cannot be done. It was, therefore, prayed that the order impugned may be recalled and opportunity of hearing may be accorded to the applicants.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank submitted that the appeal was filed on the grounds that the appellant-Bank assigned the deed in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, the Transfer Original Application pending before the Tribunal below was being prosecuted by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and in para 8 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal below also observed that the substitution was allowed after due consideration of judgment dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. and Ors., reported in MANU/SC/0782/2010, but while passing the final order, the Tribunal below had ignored the same and relied upon a judgment, which was already stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and directed the appellant-Bank to file calculation sheet of the interest payable by the borrowers. The learned counsel further submitted that the assignment of a claim refers to a situation, where a creditor/assignor transfers the right to claim a debt from the debtor to another person/assignee who then becomes a creditors vis-à-vis the debtor, as such the appellant-Bank cannot be directed to file calculation sheet or memo of cost. The learned counsel also submitted that the present recall application is not maintainable, as the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by this Tribunal, by which the appeal was allowed and the case was remanded back to the Tribunal below for reconsidering and deciding the case a fresh in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. (Supra), has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand vide order dated 30.01.2024 in WPMB No. 16 of 2024. Copy of the said order has been filed by the learned counsel, which is taken on record. The learned counsel further submitted that once the order of this Appellate Tribunal has been upheld by the higher court, then the question does not arise for the same Court to reconsider the same. It was, therefore, prayed that the present application filed by the applicants may be rejected, as the applicants themselves have stated that they have no grievance against the order impugned.

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and considering the material available on record, undisputedly the appeal was filed by the State Bank of India against a part of the judgment dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Tribunal below, whereby the appellant-Bank was directed to file calculation of interest and memo of cost within a period of 15 days for ascertaining the amount in relation to the recovery certificate. The Tribunal below in para 8 of the said judgment also observed that the assignee-Kotak Mahindra Ltd. was substituted as applicant in place of assignor-State Bank of India after due consideration of the judgment dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. (Supra), but the Tribunal below in the last of said judgment had ignored the said observation and directed the appellant-Bank to file the calculation sheet with regard to interest. Keeping in view of the said facts, this Tribunal vide order dated 27.10.2023 without considering anything on merits has only remanded the matter to the Tribunal below for reconsidering and deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator APS Star Industries Ltd. (Supra), whereas the said order has been affirmed/upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand vide its order dated 30.01.2024 passed in WPMB No. 16/2024 and also directed the Tribunal below to decide the Transfer Application in terms of the direction issued by this Appellate Tribunal.

Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal, against which the present recall application, has been affirmed/upheld by the Hon’ble High Court and the recall-applicants have also no grievance against the same as stated by them above, this Tribunal is of the view that the order impugned is not required to be interfered with, hence the present recall application is liable to be rejected. Accordingly the same is rejected with no order as to costs.