(1.) THIS review application has been filed by Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ,,HUDCO), which was arrayed as respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.6531/2008, which had been filed by Cochin International Airport Limited (hereinafter referred to as ,,CIAL) in which the judgment and / or order dated 23.12.2009 was delivered by this Bench. HUDCO seeks a review of the said judgment dated 23.12.2009 by way of the present application. HUDCO had filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court being SLP (Civil) 3836/2010 seeking special leave to appeal from the said judgment dated 23.12.2009. However, the said special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15.02.2010 by a non-speaking order. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the said special leave petition, HUDCO has filed the present review application alongwith an application for condonation of delay which has been condoned by our order dated 07.05.2010.
(2.) THE plea taken by Mr A.S. Chandhiok, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of HUDCO, was that the application (O.A. No.10/2006) filed by HUDCO under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the said Act) contained three prayers. THE first prayer was with regard to delivery of shares. In the alternative, recovery of a sum of ' 780 crores representing the value of shares was sought. THE third prayer was for a decree / certificate in favour of HUDCO and against CIAL for an amount of ' 2,28,64,566/- allegedly representing the balance amount plus interest and penal interest thereon till 28.02.2006 and interest thereon @ 11% per annum with quarterly rests from 01.01.2006 till the date of payment and additional interest from 01.03.2008. According to Mr Chandhiok, while the impugned order decided the issue with regard to the first prayer by holding that debt as defined in Section 2(g) of the said Act, did not include a claim to share certificates, the impugned judgment failed to address the aspects covered by the second and third prayers in the said O.A. 10/2006 and thus there was a mistake and / or error apparent on the face of the record in dismissing the entire O.A. No.10/2006 (HUDCO v. Cochin International Airport Limited) pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ,,DRT) as being not maintainable. It was contended that while the impugned decision conclusively dealt with the issues and aspects covered under prayer (a) of O.A. No.10/2006, prayers (b) and (c), which were in money terms, had not been considered by this court inasmuch as the same were not brought to the notice of this court. It was contended by Mr Chandhiok that prayers (b) and (c) of O.A. No.10/2006 were independent of prayer (a) which pertained to the delivery of shares and, therefore, the application (O.A. No.10/2006), even though it was not maintainable insofar as prayer (a) was concerned, could be maintained in respect of the remaining prayers, namely, prayers (b) and (c). Thus, according to Mr Chandhiok, this was a fit case for review of the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2009.
(3.) REFERRING to the said paragraphs, Mr Chandhiok submitted that it is clear that a claim to issuance of shares or delivery of shares cannot be regarded as an action seeking the recovery of "a debt" as defined in Section 2 (g) of the said Act. He submitted that in the present review application that part of the decision is not under challenge. He further submitted that in paragraph 50 of the said judgment dated 23.12.2009 itself, it has been mentioned that "HUDCO" can either have a claim to the "debt" or to the "shares", not to both. He, therefore, contended that once the claim to the shares has been held to be outside the purview of "debt" as appearing in Section 2(g) of the said Act, the application filed on behalf of HUDCO before the DRT could be considered de hors the prayer in respect of shares. He further submitted that, therefore, the application before the DRT ought not to have been thrown out log, stock and barrel as being not maintainable.