UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge declined to grant leave to the appellant to file application before Self Recovery Tribunal rectifying of its claim against Company in liquidation. Short facts involved, inter alia in this appeal is that an application was filed under Sec. 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, for leave to file application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of its claim against the company (in liquidation). The Bank being the mortgagee, is entitled to move an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal only and as such prayed for leave. In support of his contention that such application can only be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the appellant, he referred to Sections 17, 18, 31 and 34 of the Recovery to Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Mr. Mukherjee has also relied upon the following decisions :

(2.) It is the contention of Mr. Mukherjee that in terms of the aforesaid Sections of the said Act, it is only the Tribunal before which application for recovery of debts should be filed in respect of the debts due and payable to Banks, if the same is above Rs. 10,00,000.00. Mr. Mukherjee has further submitted that all the aforesaid decisions cited by him, lay down the principle that for recovery of the debt due to the Bank an application can only be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the said Act.

(3.) Mr. Prasad, learned Advocate for the official Liquidator, hag relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. M/s. Elmot Engineering Company & Other, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 159 . Mr. Prasad had also relied upon a decision in the case of UCO Bank Vs. Concast Products Ltd. (now in liqn.), reported in 1996 (1) CLJ 380.