STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MONARCH PIPES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.A.No.1074 of 2006 was filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) under Rule-9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 1959') seeking a direction to M/s.Sujala Pipes Private Limited (SPPL), Kurnool, the fourth respondent company, to deposit the lease rentals payable by it to M/s.Monarch Pipes Limited (MPL), Hyderabad, represented by its Provisional Liquidator from October, 2001 onwards, pending disposal of RCC No.2 of 2006. This application was filed on 18.07.2006.

(2.) By order dated 30.08.2006 passed in RCC No.2 of 2006, this Court directed winding up of MPL and accordingly ordered the RCC. Thereafter, by order dated 05.01.2007, C.A.No.1074 of 2006 was also ordered directing SPPL to pay the amounts as per the order dated 03.10.2001 of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in Case No.101 of 1994, along with interest.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, SPPL filed OSA No.13 of 2007. The application to suspend the operation of the order dated 05.01.2007 in C.A.No.1074 of 2006 was however dismissed by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 17.04.2007. The Division Bench observed that the order in the company application did not suffer from any illegality and accordingly dismissed the interim application seeking suspension thereof. However, the OSA itself came to be allowed by another learned Division Bench of this Court on 16.07.2007. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the objections of SPPL with regard to jurisdiction and limitation had remained unanswered and that apart, the documents which were pressed into service by it at that stage, including the order dated 06.10.1999 passed by the BIFR, were not considered earlier and therefore as the principal questions had remained unanswered and as additional evidence was now forthcoming, the Bench deemed it appropriate that the matter should be considered afresh. The company application was accordingly remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the parties. SPPL was also given liberty to produce additional documents before the Company Court. It is upon this remand that C.A.No.1074 of 2006 is now coming up again for consideration.