TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE Vs. PADMAVATHY PANEL BOARDS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED UNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is a body corporate established under the Technology Development Board Act, 1995 for granting assistance in the form of equity capital or any other financial assistance to industrial concerns and other agencies attempting development and commercial applications of indigenous or adapting imported technology to wider domestic applications. Before the constitution of the appellant, the Venture Capital Fund (VCF) formed under the Research and development Cess Act, 1986 (R and D Act) was part of the fund established by Industrial development Bank of India (IDBI), than a statutory corporation established under the Industrial developments Bank of India Act, 1964 (18 of 1964) (IDBI Act) (Since repealed) with the central government holding majority shares. The business and undertaking of IDBI has been transferred to, and vested In, IDBI Ltd. (a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and banking company within the meaning of Section 5 (c) of the Banking regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) pursuant to the Industrial Development Bank (Transfer of undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2003 (53 of 2003) (IDBI Repeal Act ). Pursuant to the IDBI repeal Act, IDBI LTD is permitted to carry on the banking business in accordance with the

(2.) BANKING Regulation Act, 1949 in addition to the business, which was already transacted by idbi. IDBI, as erstwhile statutory corporation/ or IDBI LTD as a company, as presently constituted, was / is a separate legal entity, capable of suing and be sued. Based on the request made by the respondent IDBI granted financial assistance to respondent during 1988. A loan agreement be entered into between the parties. After taking over of the Venture Capital Fund by the appellant and appointment of IDBI as it a agent, appellant in view of the defaults committed by the respondent in its payment obligations, preferred company petition NO. 301/2000 against the respondent. The respondent had defaulted to the tune of Rs. 1,84,36,422/- as on 31/10/2000.

(3.) NOTICE was issued. Matter was heard. After hearing, the learned company Judge has chosen to pass an order on 17-6-2004. In the said order, the learned Judge would hold that the present situation is not one which compels this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 433 (e) of the Act for passing an order to windup the affairs of the company, unless the Board itself has shown such awareness and was keen that the affairs of the company should have been wound-up. Learned Judge has however granted two weeks time to the appellant to place such material as it considers proper. By a subsequent order dtd 3-3-2005, another learned Judge has chosen to reject the petition for the reason set out in the order dtd 17-6-2004. Appellant has challenged these two orders in this appeal before us.