PEARL ORGANICS LIMITED Vs. ICICI LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, at great length.

(2.) This petition is against an order dated 20-8-2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay dismissing the petitioners writ petition challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) The respondents filed a claim against the petitioners before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioners had filed an application for dismissal and/or stay of the proceedings on two grounds viz.: (a) the petitioners were merely a surety and the principal debtor was before BIFR. It was claimed that by virtue of Section 22 of the SICA, even the claim against the surety could not be proceeded with, and (b) the claim should be dismissed as Respondent 1 had asked for the plural remedies in one proceeding. This was based under Rule 10 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Rules . These contentions have been rejected by the authorities below and the High Court.