Disposed

Rutvji Chemicals Limited v. Icici Bank Limited and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC11 Sept 2012APP/596/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the discharge of a Court Receiver. The bench, refraining from merits due to pending DRT proceedings, extended the High Court directions for three months to facilitate coordination between High Court and DRT Receivers.

What did the court decide?

The direction of the learned Single Judge dated 17 March 2003 shall continue for three months till 31 December 2012.

Rutvji Chemicals Limited Vs Icici Bank Limited… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

app-l-606-12.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL (LODGING) No.606 of 2012 IN

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1085 OF 2012 IN

¶5

SUIT NO.468 OF 1999

¶6

Rutvji Chemicals Limited ... Appellant Versus ICICI Bank Limited and others. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Devanshu P. Desai for the appellant.

¶8

Mr. Bharat Merchant i/by M/s. Thakordas & Madgavkar for respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr.Burgess Colabawalla and Mr.Rohit Gupta with Mr.Nikhil Rajani i/by M/s. V. Deshpande & Co. for respondent No.2. Mr. P.Y. Ladekar, Court Receiver present.

¶10

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. &

¶11

N.M. JAMDAR, J. Tuesday, September 11, 2012

¶12

P .C.

¶13

This appeal is directed against the order dated 9 August 2012 of the learned Single Judge of this Court discharging the Court Receiver who was appointed by this Court by order dated 17 March 2003 in Notice of Motion No. 1794 of 2002 in suit No.468 of 1999.

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellant (original defendant No.7) submits that the proceedings in which the Court Receiver was appointed by this Court is still pending and, therefore, the Court Receiver appointed as far back as in 2003 should not have been discharged. It is submitted that in view of the matter, if at all, the Court Receiver appointed by this Court was required to be discharged, the terms and conditions subject to which Court Receiver was appointed by this court by order dated 17 March 2003 ought to have been continued by the learned Single Judge.

1 of 4

SRK

app-l-606-12.sxw

Our attention is invited to the said order dated 17 March 2003 particularly the last para containing the following direction:-

¶19

“The Receiver is directed to take possession but not to dispossess any person in possession, if they are in possession of lessees. The said lessees are directed to make payment of lease amount to the Court Receiver which will be subject to the final order which will be passed by this Court in the suit.”

¶20

The lerned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the mortgagee of the property in question being office premises Nos.105 and 106 at Raheja Centre, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.

¶21

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt.Ltd. (IARC) submits that the DRT has appointed the Receiver in the recovery proceedings upon the decree having been passed in favour of respondent No.2- IARC which is the assignee of the debts of Bank of Baroda which was the original applicant before the DRT. It is submitted that since the decree is passed by the DRT and the recovery certificate is issued in favour of respondent No.2 there was no need to give any directions to the DRT Receiver appointed by the Recovery Officer other than to execute the recovery certificate. The DRT was not bound to give any other directions in favour of the appellant when the Receiver appointed by Recovery Officer. The learned counsel further submits that the DRT is also not required to take into consideration the order passed by this Court on 17 March 2003.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the controversy between the parties as the matter is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and we are informed that the appeal has also been filed before the appellate authority against the order of Receiver appointed by the Recovery Officer.

2 of 4

SRK

app-l-606-12.sxw

Our attention is also invited to the letter dated 5 September 2012 of the Court Receiver appointed by this Court informing the appellant and others that as per the order dated 9 August 2012 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Court Receiver has fixed the appointment on 12 September 2012 at 2 p.m. to go to the suit site for the purpose of handing over the formal possession of the same with the DRT Receiver appointed by the Recovery Officer. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that since the directions given by this Court were issued after taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is a secured creditor in respect of the above office premises, all concerned are bound by the order passed by this Court.

¶27

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that interests of justice would be served if the appeal is disposed of in terms of the following directions:-

¶28

(i) The direction given by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the order dated 17 March 2003 in Notice of Motion No.1794 of 2002 shall continue for a period of three months i.e. till 31 December 2012

¶29

(ii) In the meantime, it will be open to respondent No.2-IARC to file an application within one month from today before the DRT for giving appropriate directions to the Receiver appointed by the Recovery Officer of the DRT and equally, it will be open to the appellant to make an application before the DRT to continue the aforesaid directions

3 of 4

SRK

app-l-606-12.sxw

(iii) The DRT will decide both the applications i.e. application of respondent No.2- IARC as well as the application of the present appellant on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the fact that the learned Single Judge of this Court has passed order dated 9 August 2012 discharging the Receiver appointed by the High Court.

¶34

(iv) It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy raised in this appeal.

¶35

The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above

directions.

CHIEF JUSTICE

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

4 of 4

SRK

Rutvji Chemicals Limited v. Icici Bank Limited and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rutvji Chemicals Limited v. Icici Bank Limited and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Haque Razak Ansari Vs Smt. Hajra Abdul Razak Ansari

Citispace and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Master Chetan Rajkumar Doshi through His Guardian Shri Rajkumar M. Doshi Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra through the Director, Medical Education and Reasearch and 3 Ors.

Sanjay Kakade, of Pune,. Vs M/S. Bhushan Petrofiles Pvt. Ltd.

Zarina @ Rashida Latif Qureshi Vs 1. Dilip Modji Donakia and Anr.

Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck @ Jer Jawahar Thadani and Anr. Vs Maharukh M. Oomrigar and 5 Ors.