KANWAR SATPAL SINGH Vs. ROCKLAND LEASING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed against order dated 9.7.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Execution Case No.202 of 2002, whereby the District Forum disposed of the execution application saying that since in C. P. No.93/2001 and Co. A (B) No.4/1998 in the matter of Reserve Bank of India V/s. M/s. Rockland Leasing Ltd. , the Hon'ble High Court by their judgment dated 5.12.2001 had appointed Provisional Liquidator, the proper remedy left to the Decree Holder is to file his claim with the said Provisional Liquidator.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the revisionist Mr. G. D. Hans, Advocate contended that in the order dated 5.12.2001 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is mentioned at page 2 that cases proceeding in various Fora against Sh. J. M. Chawla, Arun Chawla, Tarun Chawla and Ms. Indu Chawla and the Company-Rockland Leasing Limited should continue, if not already concluded. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the National Commission] in the case of Ravikant and Another V/s. Mrs. Veena Bhatnagar and Others, 1996 1 CPJ 260 (NC ). In the case of Ravikant and Another , the main submission made was that the company was in the process of liquidation and the Hon'ble Company Judge of Delhi High Court vide order dated 3.6.1992 had already given charge of the company to the Official Liquidator attached to the Hon'ble Company Court that all proceedings are liable to be stayed against the company by virtue of the provisions of Sec.446 of the Companies Act and further more the charge of the company after appointment of the Official Liquidator/provisional Liquidator, goes in the exclusive hands of the Liquidator and no attachment or recovery can be made or enforced against the company by virtue of the provisions of Sections 441, 442, 446 and 537 of the Companies Act. It was further argued that a decree holder cannot resort to the recovery by way of simple execution in case of company which is under process of liquidation and the only remedy in such cases is to approach the concerned Company Court under the provisions of preferential payments under Sec.530 of the Companies Act.

(3.) The Hon'ble National Commission in the last but concluding para observed, inter alia, as under: "admittedly, no winding up order has been passed of the two companies. The State Commission considered the provisions of 446 of the Companies and held, in our view rightly that from the reading of Sub-section (1) of Sec.446 of the Companies Act, it is evident that no proceedings against a company after the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator can be commenced except by the leave of the Court. However, if any proceedings are pending on such date, these can continue till the date when winding up orders are passed by the Court. The proceedings before the State Commission thus could continue in spite of the fact that a Provisional Liquidator has been appointed by the High Court for I. G. F. Leasing (P) Ltd. as the cases were pending on the date of the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator. "