ICICI LTD Vs. LLOYDS FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present Motion the plaintiffs have sought a decree on admission in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Motion. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit against the defendants in their capacity as Debenture Trustees for diverse classes of Debenture Holders for an amount payable by the defendants under and in respect of 1,00,00,000/- 15% Secured Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs) of Rs.190/- each aggregating to Rs.190 crores together with interest. As there was a default by the defendants in making the payment the present suit and the reliefs as claimed in the prayer clause.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit plaintiffs took out Notice of Motion No.1689 of 2000 whereby various reliefs as sought for including appointment of Receiver was sought by the plaintiffs. In answer to the said Motion Mr. Madan Gopal Jalan s/o. Late Shri Bansrasilal Jalan, Vice President (Legal and Company Secretary) filed an affidavit in reply on behalf of the defendants dated 11th July, 2000. In para.3(b) apart from other averments there was this averment which reads as under:-

(3.) IN answer to the said Motion Madan Gopal Jalan has filed his affidavit in reply on behalf of the defendants and it is dated 17th March, 2003. In paragraph 3 it is the stand of the affiant that his affidavit of 11th July, 2000 must be read as a whole and if read as a whole it will be clear that what is stated therein is that there is an unconditional and irrevocable sale/assignment of the securities assets in favour of the plaintiffs which clearly amounts to discharge of the obligations of the defendant company to the plaintiffs under the Debenture Trust Deed dated April 17, 1996. It is, therefore, contended that it was for the plaintiffs to have realised an/or enforced the said securities of which they were the full and absolute owners, and applied the same in satisfaction of their claim and if they have not done so they themselves are to be blamed. In short the defence is that the security assets are made available to the plaintiffs and to that extent the defendants are discharged. In para.6 it is stated that the securitized assets at the time of filing the affidavit dated 11th July, 2000 was Rs.14.7 crores. There are some other averments including the actual claim of the face value of Rs.10.00 crores are of the value of Rs.10 crores issued by the Benzoplast Ltd., which is also securititized in favour of the plaintiffs. It is, therefore, contended that this would, therefore, be not a fit case for this Court to pass a decree as prayed for.