T.R.BHUVANESHWARI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the order passed by this Court on 11.03.2009 in A. Nos.318 of 2007 in I.P. Nos. 134 and 77 of 2002, along with the other applications of the first respondent bank, allowing the claim of the bank to the extent of Rs.3,19,23,571.05 out of Rs.3,79,11,492.64, in respect of the sale of the appellant's property by way of public auction.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have dismissed the application of the first respondent-bank, holding that the bank was not entitled to the entire claim made by it. It is his further submission that the Official Assignee had failed to notice that there were several discrepancies in the calculation of the amounts due, by the bank and the bank was not consistent in the maintenance of accounts, as different figures were reflected at different places for the amounts due on one date. The Official Assignee had failed to bring these discrepancies to the notice of the learned single Judge and had the Official Assignee brought this to the notice of the Court, the learned single Judge would have remanded the matter for fresh disposal, after ascertaining the correctness of the accounts. He stated that the learned single Judge erred in stating that the first respondent bank was entitled to the interest as claimed for. He further stated that the second respondent would not be entitled for interest at the contractual rate and in any rate, not compounded after the date of adjudication. It is his further submission that the learned single Judge ought not to have relied upon the provisions of the Companies Act while deciding the issues, as the legislative intent of the Companies Act and the Acts relating to insolvency, are distinct in nature and cannot be compared in the matter of this nature. Finally stating that the other reasons pointed out by the learned single Judge in allowing the application of the first respondent herein are unconvincing and unsustainable in law, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed that this appeal has to be allowed.