Disposed

Icici Bank Limited v. Vanjinad Leathers Limited

DRT12 Sept 2023MA/188/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-1 at Ernakulam adjudicated a petition by ICICI Bank to fix consolidated remuneration for an Advocate Receiver. The Tribunal rejected the plea for a consolidated calculation in 2008, fixed remuneration at Rs. 15,000 per visit for 72 total visits, and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 10.8 lakhs within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to pay Rs. 10,80,000 as total remuneration to the Advocate Receiver within four weeks from the date of the order.

Icici Bank Limited versus Vanjinad Leathers Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 12^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L.

¶5

[DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶6

MA No. 188/2023 in RC No. 4102 in

¶7

TA No. 3/2003

¶8

Between

¶9

ICICI Bank Limited, having its registered office at 163, Backbay Reclamation, Bombay – 400 020.

¶10

----Petitioner/Certificate Holder Bank /Applicant.

¶11

And

¶12

Vanjinad Leathers Limited, having its registered office at M-10-9, Housing Board, Ashok Nagar, Ayyanthadle, Trichur – 680 003,

¶13

Kerala State.

¶14

Industrial Development Bank of India, having its head office at Nariman Bhavan, 227, Vinay K Shah Marg,

¶15

Nariman Point, Bombay – 400 021.

¶16

MA No. 188/2023 in TA No. 3/2003

¶17

¶18

Industrial Finance Corporation of India, having its head office at Bank of Baroda Building, 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110001.

¶19

State Bank of Travancore, having its head office at Poojapura, Trivandrum – 695 003.

¶20

Tehsildar, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District,

¶21

----Respondents/Certificate Debtors/Defendants

¶22

The Official Liquidator, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala,

¶23

Ernakulam.

¶24

----Additional Defendant

¶25

This petition coming on 30.08.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Akash George, Advocate for the Petitioner/Certificate Holder and Mr. M. S. Kalesh, Receiver appointed and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Certificate Holder and Receiver and upon perusing the material records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

MA No. 188/2023 in TA No. 3/2003 :- This petition has been filed by the petitioner/Certificate Holder bank seeking to fix the remuneration of the Advocate Receiver in a consolidated basis in the interest of justice.

¶28

Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Certificate Holder submitted that this Tribunal vide order dated 10.10.2008 in IA No. 1389/2008 appointed Mr. M. S. Kalesh as the Receiver and that he was discharged from Receivership on 31.01.2023 and that his remuneration has not been fixed by this Tribunal and that the Advocate Receiver has filed Annexure – A2 expenses claiming an amount of Rs.4,15,030/- and that more than 10 years has elapsed since the appointment and that the petitioner/Certificate Holder has been paying security expenses of the property till 31.05.2023 alongwith other expenses amounting to Rs.1,31,55,098.52 and that remuneration is to be fixed in a consolidated figure as the disbursement on paripasu basis is

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

MA No. 188/2023 in TA No. 3/2003

¶31

¶32

much less than the claim amount and that therefore, remuneration for the Receiver may be fixed in a consolidated figure.

¶33

The Advocate Receiver submitted that he had to visit the factory premises periodically, which is situated nearly 150 Kms. from the Tribunal and that no amount was disbursed to him towards the expenses incurred by him for the periodical inspection and that except monthly emoluments of Rs.12,500/- already tentatively fixed by this Tribunal, remuneration was not fixed and that he is entitled to get the remuneration from 2008 to till date together with expenses and that therefore, monthly remuneration of Rs.15,000/- may be fixed.

¶34

This Tribunal vide order dated 10.07.2008 in IA No. 998/2008 fixed a remuneration of Rs.50,000/- on account of visit of the property 4 times by the Advocate Receiver. As per the above order for each visit the remuneration has been calculated @ Rs.12,500/-. There is no specific mention in the order for fixing the remuneration in a consolidated manner. Hence, this Tribunal does not find any force in the submission of the petitioner bank that remuneration for the Advocate Receiver has to be fixed in a consolidated manner for the each visit in the 2008 by the Advocate Receiver. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered view that it is just and necessary to fix a sum of Rs.15,000/- for each visit to the property. Advocate Receiver’s claim memo Annexure – A2 a perusal of the same reveals that he has visited the property for 72 times from the month of October, 2008 to January, 2023. Accordingly, the remuneration of Rs.15,000/- has to be fixed for each visit to the property. If it is so, the total remuneration payable to the Advocate Receiver @ Rs.15,000/- comes to Rs.10,80,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner/Certificate Holder is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- being the remuneration to the Advocate Receiver within a period of four (04) weeks from today.

¶35

In the result, the petition MA No. 188/2023 stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 12^th September, 2023

¶37

[Su. WILLYAHM] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

Page 3 of 3

Icici Bank Limited v. Vanjinad Leathers Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Vanjinad Leathers Limited

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s North East Tubes and Pipes

Ram Ekbal Sah versus Canara Bank

Yes Bank versus Bhanu Pratap Singh

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Aadinath Traders

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M/S N. S. Prints

Punjab National Bank versus Deepak Mishra