COMMERZ BANK AG Vs. ARVIND MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have taken out this Judge's Summons for the relief that the order passed by this Court in Company Application No. 160/2001 dated 13.6.2001 needs to be recalled. Rest of the reliefs as prayed for by the applicants are ancillary. In the affidavit in support of this judge's summons filed by Mr. A. Sekar, Power of Attorney holder of Singapore Branch of applicant No. 1 Bank, he has raised various contentions in support of the say that the order requires to be recalled otherwise the applicant banks being a lender in foreign currency are likely to be prejudiced with the proceedings and the out-come. It is contended and submitted that some of the transactions of opponent Arvind Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "AML" for short) have rendered AML inviable and under the strategy, AML got issued the notification under the Bombay Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BRU Act' for short ) and AML under the legal umbrella of BRU Act has tried to compel the applicants to accept the scheme. Bonafide of AML is also placed under the cloud of doubt by the applicants. It is submitted that the applicants-banks being members of syndicate who have lent huge amount in foreign currency to AML entitled to be treated as Members of separate class of secured creditors are quoted at par with other secured creditors who have lent the amount in the foreign currency. Certain malafide is also alleged against the AML.

(2.) The facts of pendency of civil suit for recovery of the amount in the London Court and the criminal proceedings initiated against the AML and the officers of the ICICI are also brought to the notice of the Court. It is pointed out that AML has tried to transfer the huge fund to the sister concern (i.e. its subsidiaries) and has tempted ICICI, a trustee to be his partner in causing huge lose or damage to the members of the syndicate including the applicants-banks under the sale and lease back transactions which have taken place with the ICICI. The arguments advanced by the applicants can be divided into five main parts:

(3.) Mr. Anil Diwan learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants has tried to clarify the status of the applicant-banks and has pointed out that the applicants can legitimately asked to convene the separate meeting for the secured creditors who has lent the amount in foreign currency.