INDIAN BANK Vs. PRISMA HOME APPLIANCE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two appeals assail the very same proceedings and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, hence, they are taken up together for disposal.

(2.) THE appellant in O. S. A No. 53 of 2006 is the Indian Bank, which seeks to assail the orders of the learned Single Judge in allowing the application filed by the Official Liquidator representing the company in liquidation seeking to set aside the sale as void as per the orders passed in Company Application No. 1193 of 2005 in Company Petition No. 81 of 1996 dated 7. 3. 2006. Whereas, the appellant in the other appeal i. e. , O. S. A No. 41 of 2007 is the third party/purchaser who having purchased the property that was sold in auction conducted by the bank and seeks to assail the very same order.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated facts, which are not much in controversy are that the company in question viz. , M/s. Prism Home Appliances Private Limited was ordered to be wound up by this Court on the Original Side of Company jurisdiction as per the orders dated 13. 7. 1999 and consequently entire assets of the company in liquidation, as claimed by the Official Liquidator, stood vested with the official Liquidator. However, the grievance of the Official Liquidator who filed the present application in seeking to set aside the sale conducted by the bank, is that without intervention of the Company Court or issuance of any notice to the Official Liquidator, the bank proceeded to lay a claim for recovery of the amounts due under a debt due to them by filing a proceedings in o. A No. 1447 of 1997 before the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal and obtained a decree. Later on, as per the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the bank has obtained certificate dated 19. 1. 2003 for a sum of Rs. 4,04,23,607/ -. Consequently, the bank sought to proceed to sell the properties by way of auction on 18. 12. 2003 and later on, a certificate was duly issued on 22. 1. 2004 in favour of the auction purchaser. The appellant in O. S. A. No. 41 of 2007 claimed to have purchased the said property under a registered sale deed document bearing no. 1637 of 2005 dated 3. 5. 2005.