NAVDEEP THEATRE P LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This shall dispose of two civil revisions bearing Nos. 4365 and 4366 of 1996 as these raise common question of law and-fact Reference is being made to the facts as given in Civil Revision No. 4365 of 1996.

(2.) The petitioner has sought issuance of appropriate directions for setting aside the order dated August 20, 1996, annexure P-8, and August 26, 1996, annexure P-10, whereby suit for recovery has been transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, instituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, by invoking the supervisory powers of this court.

(3.) Briefly put, as per the case of the petitioner, it is a private limited company having its registered office at Amritsar. It is the case of the petitioner that some commercial land was allotted by the Improvement Trust, Amritsar, some time in the year 1973 and with a view to develop the same for the purpose of carrying on the business of cinema, a loan in the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was initially sought from respondent No. 2-Punjab and Sind Bank through its regional manager, branch office, Amritsar. To provide security to the bank, the property along with the building, fixtures, machinery and other articles were mortgaged with the bank. It was further agreed between the parties that approximately 3,800 square feet of the area of the ground floor of the premises was to be occupied by the bank. Rent for the area was agreed to be adjusted against the loan instalments from November, 1977. It is further the case of the petitioner that the remaining part of the land was to be carved into 59 air-conditioned shops which were to be constructed out of the additional loans which were to be advanced by the respondent-bank. However, according to the petitioner, the said loan was never given whereas the petitioner got the shops constructed out of its own funds. The shops were completed in the year 1977 and as per the power of attorney dated November 26, 1976, these could be rented out by the bank authorities. However, they failed to rent out the shops and so adjusted the rent against the loan instalments. According to the petitioner, the rent of the aforesaid shops was approximately Rs. 1,95,000 per month as per assessment annexure P-1 and this amount was to be adjusted by the respondent-bank towards the loan instalments. The bank, however, instead of settling the account of the petitioner on the basis of rent of the shops, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,13,31,666 along with costs and future interest at the rate of 191/2 per cent. per annum. Along with the suit, prayer was made for attachment of the property in terms of Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") and a restraint order as envisaged under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. Prayer was also made for appointment of receiver under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code. The court, vide order dated September 19, 1990, granted the injunction as prayed for as well as appointed a receiver of the property. The order of appointment of receiver was challenged by the petitioner and the matter is pending adjudication in F. A. O. No. 810 of 1990.