Vinedale Distilleries Ltd. vs Dena Bank And Ors.

J.M. Malik, J

This order shall decide two review petitions moved respectively in the above said two cases. Vide impugned order dated 5.10.2010, the learned DRT accepted the application filed by M/s. Sanman Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and it was impleaded as respondent in the array of parties and it was allowed to negotiate with the Bank for amicable and out of Court settlement. The said order was called into question before this Court.

Vide order passed by this Court, the appeal filed by M/s. Vinedale Distilleries Ltd. and Mr. Satish Kumar Aggarwal was accepted.

Aggrieved by that order, a writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court by the respondent. The Hon'ble High Court accepted the writ petition and made the following observations:

The Sanman Group also sought to contest the proceedings under the Securitisation Act and in that process, moved the Supreme Court by filing a SLP in which orders were passed on 31.8.2009 permitting them to withdraw the proceedings to file an application for intervention in the proceedings under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act pending before the DRT.

In view of the above, the aspect to be kept in mind is the principle of dominus litis. The proceedings have been initiated by respondent No. 1 /Bank. Respondent No. 1 /Bank is more than willing to have Sanman Group impleaded as a party in the recovery proceedings i.e., its O.A. The objective is apparent that in view of there being conflicts inter se the management, it would subserve its interest if all the parties are before the DRT. The petitioner through their Counsel have already stated before us that no pleadings have to be filed and that the final hearing, in the matter, can proceed, on the next date fixed before DRT i.e., 16.3.2011.

To us, this would be the least efficacious approach; giving rise only to multifarious proceedings, to the detriment of the Bank and none other.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out to us that the transfer of the proceedings from Hyderabad to the DRT at Delhi were in fact at the behest of the petitioner, who had moved the transfer petition before the Supreme Court. This is an added fact to be taken into account.

Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 /Bank has clearly submitted before us that the Bank, keeping its interest in mind, which is, expeditious recovery is in favour of impleadment of the petitioner/S.K. Aggarwal Group in both O.A. and S.A. proceedings. The learned Counsel for the Bank thus prays for a direction from this Court to pass an efficacious order which would bring this long drawn dispute to an end and allow hearing to proceed before the DRT, preferably, on a day-to-day basis.

We are thus of the considered view that the impugned order of the DRAT dated 16.12.2010 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. The order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the DRT impleading the `petitioner is sustained.

Respondent No. 2, in our view, had unnecessarily continued with these proceedings only to prolong the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 both in the O.A. and the S.A. We would expect the DRT to expeditiously proceed with the hearing both in the OA and the S.A. specially, in view of the fact that the petitioner has already taken a stand before us that no further-pleadings are to be filed and that it would make its submissions on the basis of record already filed before the DRT.

The learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court is based on the premise of dominus litis. It is explained that this view may be correct for so far as OA is concerned but the SAs were filed by the applicant. The applicant does not want that they should be impleaded as a party in his SA. He further contended that he has not challenged the order in the OA.

I see merit in his argument in a measure. Counsel for the appellant may be academically correct but the Hon'ble High Court was conscious of the pendency of the SA as is apparent from the above quoted paras. Again, SA was transferred from Hyderabad to Delhi keeping in mind that all other proceedings relating to management and control of Vinedale Distilleries Ltd. were being heard by Delhi High Court. Moreover, the latest order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 19.4.2011 mentions about the connection between the OA and SA. Paras 4 and 5 of the said order are reproduced as follows:

On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Chaudhury, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the OA and SA both are to be disposed (sic) this SA first without adjudicating the exact liability/legitimate dues which can only be decided in the pending OA.

I have considered this submission. Admittedly there is interim stay in this case. It is a matter of record that there is now inter se dispute between the directors of the company. However, this SA cannot be kept pending for indefinite period. I, therefore, allow the prayer made by the learned Counsel forthe respondent Bank for its early disposal. The Hon'ble High Court has also desired the same in its order dated 1.3.2011 passed in WP (C) 57/2011.

In light of the above discussion and the view already taken by the Hon'ble High Court, I find no force in the review petitions. Both the review petitions are, hereby, dismissed. No costs.

Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and one copy be sent to the learned DRT forthwith.