PND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. FAB LEATHERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises from the order dated February 18, 2020 as corrected by a subsequent order dated February 24, 2020 passed in GA No.1590 of 2019, EC No.113 of 2007, AP No.55 of 2001 whereby the executing Court directed the Registrar, Original Side to release and make over the proceeds of account No.31454704056 dated September 27, 2007 lying with State Bank of India, specialized institutional banking branch, Kolkata with the accrued interest thereon in favour of respondents award/decreeholders.

(2.) The instant appeal is being taken up on the basis of the undertaking already given on behalf of the respondents that they would withdraw the appeal arising out of the special leave petition being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11740-11742 of 2009 pending before the Supreme Court preferred from the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated March 16, 2009 as recorded in the said impugned order dated February 18, 2020 and Mr. Bachawat the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has further confirmed such undertaking before this Court and the present appeal is being disposed of subject to such undertaking.

(3.) The first appellant is successor-in-interest of an insolvent company, the second appellant, whose assets in effect been purchased by the first appellant in an insolvency proceeding. The respondents lent and advanced money to the second appellant from time to time. The agreement between the parties envisaged the loan to carry interest @ of 28% per annum with quarterly rests. The agreement further provided that in lieu of the money due being paid to the respondents, the second appellant being the debtor company would hand over certain constructed flats at 30, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 (hereinafter referred to as the said property). The second appellant was to complete the construction on the said property and hand over the flats on or before March 31, 2000. If the second appellant failed to construct the flats within the said period it was to refund the amount to the respondents. The second appellant failed to discharge its obligation in terms of the said agreement.