1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR BETWEEN: C.A.NO. 190/2008 In Co.P. NO.167/1999 Official Liquidator of M/s. Kritika Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., (In liqn), Attached to High Court of Karnataka, F wing, 4 th Floor, Kendriyasadan, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 034....Applicant (By Sri.K.S.Mahadevan, Advocate) AND: 1. Canara Bank, Hosur Main Road, Madiwala Branch, Bangalore-560 068. 2. T.Devaraja, No.57, 16 th Cross, 10 th Main, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560 030..Respondents (By Sri.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri.D.Aswathappa, Advocate for R-1; Sri.Uday Shankar R.M, Advocate for R-2 for M/s Uday
2 Shankar Associates, Advocates) This C.A is filed under Section 537 of the Companies Act, 1956 R/w Section 456 of the Act Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, praying that for the reasons stated therein this Hon ble Court may be pleased to:- Declare the sale of the assets of the company (in liqn.) by the respondent No.1& 2 as void and etc., This Company Application having been heard and reserved, coming on for pronouncement of Order this day, the court made the following: O R D E R This application is filed by Official Liquidator under Section 537 read with Section 436 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 to declare the sale of assets of the company (in liquidation) by respondent Nos.1 and 2 as void and to direct the respondents to handover the assets of the company (in liquidation) to the official liquidator. 2. Notice of this application came to be ordered on the respondents. They were duly served and unrepresented and as such they were placed exparte by order dated 26.06.2008. This Court considered the claim of the Official Liquidator (hereinafter referred to as OL for brevity) and by
3 order dated 25.11.2008 allowed the application and directed the respondents to handover the assets of the company (in liquidation). Being aggrieved by this order respondents-1 and 2 filed appeal in OSA No.19/2009 and 10/2009. Said appeal came to be disposed of by order dated 07.07.2011 and both the appeals were allowed by accepting the plea put forward by the appellants therein namely, that they should be afforded an opportunity before the Company Court to put forth their defence. The matter came to be remanded to the Company Court for consideration afresh. 3. Pursuant to the said order of remand, respondents-1 and 2 have filed their objections to the application. The summary of the objections raised by first and second respondents are as under: OBJECTIONS OF FIRST RESPONDENT: 3.1) Company (in liquidation) had borrowed loan and a charge had been created over the immovable property by mortgaging the same in favour of Bank and on account of the said company (in liquidation) becoming defaulter O.A.194/1997 was filed for recovery of Rs.71,03,955/- with
4 interest and other charges and said application came to be allowed on 26.06.2000. Pursuant to the said order, recovery certificate came to be issued and the Recovery Officer of DRT attached said property on 27.06.2005 and thereafter public notice dated 02.10.2005 was issued for auctioning property to be held on 05.10.2005. Second respondent was successful bidder and it was sold to him by Recovery Officer, DRT and auction sale was confirmed on 16.11.2005. 3.2) It was further contended that Recovery Officer through public notice had called on creditors of any priority claims and nobody had claimed except KIADB which was allowed partly and proceeds of sale of mortgaged property were adjusted towards debt due to the applicant after clearing the dues of KIADB as allowed by Recovery Officer. 3.3) After three years the secured creditor received copy of the judgment dated 25.11.2008 and only then it came to its knowledge about company petition 167/1999 had been filed against company (in liquidation) for winding up and same was ordered to be wound up by this Court by order dated 29.06.2006 as also the OL having taken charge.
5 3.4) The application is not maintainable and leave of the Company Court is not required since jurisdiction of Tribunal is exclusive and Tribunal alone has to decide applications for recovery of debts due to Banks or financial institutions under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as DRT Act ). Under Section 18 of DRT Act the jurisdiction of any other Court or authority would otherwise have had jurisdiction but for the provisions of the Act, is ousted and the power to adjudicate upon liability is exclusively vested in the Tribunal. It is also contended that execution of Recovery certificates issued under Section 19(22) of the DRT Act is vested with the Recovery Officer exclusively. The procedure contemplated under Chapter V of the Act is to be followed. It is not the intendment of the Act that while basic liability of defendant is to be decided by Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `Tribunal ). Under Section 17 of DRT Act, the Banks or financial institutions will have to go to Civil Court or Company Court or some other authority outside the Act for realisation of the amount so determined by the Tribunal. No dual jurisdiction at different stages are
6 contemplated. Section 34 of the DRT Act clearly states that it overwrites other laws to the extent of inconsistency. The adjudication of liability, issuance of recovery certificate and recovery of the amount by executing recovery certificate or within the exclusive jurisdiction of Tribunal and Recovery Officer. No other Court or authority can go into said questions relating to liability and recovery as provided under DRT Act. The said DRT Act is a special law which overrides other special law and as such, leave of Company Court under Section 446(1) of Companies Act, 1956 was not necessary nor could the application be transferred to the Company Court under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. 3.5) Second respondent has also without knowledge of liquidation proceedings participated in the auction conducted by Recovery officer and is a bonafide purchaser entitled to the ownership and possession of property sold to him particularly when valid consideration has been paid to Recovery Officer and property having been registered in the name of second respondent and also he being in actual
7 physical possession. On these grounds amongst others, first respondent sought for dismissal of the application. OBJECTIONS OF SECOND RESPONDENT: 3.6) Apart from reiterating the contentions raised by first respondent, second respondent contends that he has acted bonafide without having any notice of liquidation proceedings and no information was furnished by first respondent who was having knowledge of liquidation proceedings. 3.7) The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SERFAESI Act ) is a special Act and Section 35 is a non-abstante clause and it will have an overriding effect over other laws and this Act was enacted after the Companies Act, 1956 and as such it will prevail over the Companies Act, 1956. 3.8) Under Section 18 of DRT Act, jurisdiction of other Courts (except that of Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 17 is ousted and power to
8 adjudicate is exclusively vested with DRT. Similarly, recovery of the amounts due under the Recovery Certificate is exclusively vested with Recovery Officer and leave of the Company Court is not required for initiating or continuing the proceedings under DRT Act or in respect of execution proceedings of the Recovery Officer. The provisions of DRT Act are superior to the provisions of Section 442, 446 & 537 of Companies Act, 1956. 3.9) Second respondent has acted in good faith since he participated in auction sale conducted by Recovery Officer under the provisions of DRT Act and liquidation proceedings was not within the knowledge of second respondent till service of exparte order dated 25.11.2008 and he is a bonafide purchaser. Winding up order was passed after property was purchased by second respondent and as such sale made by Recovery officer of DRT is in accordance with law. On these grounds, second respondent has sought for dismissal of company application. 4. I have heard the arguments of Sri K.S.Mahadevan, learned Advocate appearing for OL, Sri Nanjunda Reddy,
9 learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri D Aswathappa, for respondent-1 and Sri Udaya Shankar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-2. 5. It is the contention of Sri K.S.Mahadevan, learned Advocate appearing for OL that any sale made during pendency of winding up proceedings, without permission of Company Court is bad in law. He contends that OL is joint owner of property and he has a pari-passu charge over the property by virtue of Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. He would also contend that in the case of ALLAHABAD BANK vs CANARA BANK & ANOTHER reported in (2000)4 SCC 406 the examination and interpretation of Section 529-A (1)(a) was not under consideration and it was the subject matter of consideration by Larger Bench of the Apex Court in ANDHRA BANK vs OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ANOTHER reported in (2005)5 SCC 75 whereunder it has been held that finding recorded in paragraph 76 of the judgment in ALLAHABAD BANK s case does not lay down the correct law and as such, he contends that the dicta laid down in ALLAHABAD BANK s case need not be considered in view of subsequent larger Bench judgment of ANDHRA
10 BANK s case referred to supra, whereunder it has been held that power under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 can only be exercised upon consideration of respective contentions of the parties raised in a suit or proceeding or any claim made by or against company and determination of priorities amongst creditors would also fall for consideration if parties claiming the same were before the Court. He would also submit that Apex Court in the case of MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & OTHERS reported in (2009) 10 SCC 123 while considering the priority clause found in Employee s Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has held that the use of expression all other debts would imply that priority clause would operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including mortgage or pledge and said Act being a social welfare legislation intended to protect the interest of weaker Section of Society, Courts have to give a purposive interpretation to the provisions contained therein keeping in view the directive principles of State Policy embodied in Articles 38 and 43 of
11 the Constitution of India and contends that same would hold good insofar as Section 529A is concerned which Section has to be interpreted in favour of the workmen inasmuch as, the sale of a immovable property or the assets belonging to the company (in liquidation) is sold without reference to OL, it may not fetch the price which it would have if the OL had been associated with and it is for this precise reason, a paripassu charge is created over the property of the company (in liquidation) in favour of the OL. The rights of secured creditor is pari-passu with the interest of workmen represented by OL in respect of company (in liquidation) and both of them would be the joint owners and as such, one cannot unilaterally sell properties without the knowledge or consent of the other joint owner. The necessity to involve the joint owner is to secure the best price and that would be the paramount consideration. He would also submit that secured creditor cannot plead about lack of knowledge about the pendency of company petition for winding up and passing up of winding up order and as on date of the sale of property by recovery Officer to the second respondent i.e., on 05.10.2005 the Company Petition 167/1999 had already
12 been filed and was pending before this Court and as such, by operation of law Secured creditor had notice. Hence, he seeks for allowing the application. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1) Unreported judgment in OSA 31/2004 disposed of on 21.07.2005. 2) 102 (2000) Company Cases page 3 3) 2003 AIR SCW 1524- INTERNATIONAL COACH BUILDERS LTD V/S KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION 4) AIR 2000 SC 755- RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANR. V/S OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ANR. 5) AIR 2008 SC 2699- M/S BAKEMANS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., V/S M/S NEW CAWNPORE FLOUR MILLS & ORS. 6) (2005)5 SCC 75- ANDHRA BANK V/S OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ANOTHER 7) (2009)10 SCC 123- MAHARASTHRA STATE CO- OPERTATIVE BANK LIMITED V/S ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS 6. Per contra, Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Sr.Advocate appearing on behalf of secured creditor would contend that recovery proceedings and sale of property
13 belonging to a creditor is in the domain of DRT and company Court s jurisdiction is ousted. He would contend that DRT Act is a special enactment and Section 34 would clearly indicate that except to the extent of saving clause of subsection (2) of Section 34 the provisions of DRT Act will have an overriding effect and in view of sub-section (2) not providing for the application of provisions of Companies Act, 1956 it would be subservient to the special enactment or in other words, the provisions of DRT Act will prevail over the Companies Act, 1956. He would elaborate his submission by contending that right to sell and right to distribution of sale proceeds being different, the application of Section 529A of Companies Act, 1956 which only deals with distribution will have to be read along with sub-section (19) of Section 19 of DRT Act which enables the DRT to order sale proceeds of a company to be distributed amongst its secured creditors in accordance with Section 529A of Companies Act, 1956. He would also contend that Section 46B of State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as SFC Act ) is not similar to Section 34 of DRT Act inasmuch as, there is no provision
14 in SFC Act similar to sub-section (19) of Section 19 of DRT Act. He would draw the attention of Court to paragraph 14 of RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANOTHER vs OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR reported in AIR 2006 SC 755 whereunder the effect of Section 529A has been considered, examined and held that no leave of Company Court was necessary for initiating proceedings under the DRT Act and Company Courts jurisdiction under Section 442, 446 of the Companies Act stood ousted in respect of adjudication of liability and execution of certificate in respect of debts payable to Banks and Financial institutions, which are respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of DRT and the recovery officer. As such, he contends that when there is no similar provision like sub-section (19) of Section 19 of DRT Act under SFC Act the right of secured creditor would be circumscribed by provisions of DRT Act. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the application. 7. Sri Udaya Shankar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of second respondent would support the contentions raised by learned Sr.Advocate and would supplement his argument under the following heads:
15 (1) Second respondent is a bonafide purchaser for value and section 25 to 30 of DRT Act provides for mode of sale which has been adopted by Recovery Officer; (2) DRT s jurisdiction is exclusive on three grounds namely, jurisdiction, right to sell and right to appropriate; (3) The right exercisable by DRT under subsection (19) of Section 19 will be available as long as no winding up order is there. OL will not step in till winding up order is passed or till a provisional liquidator is appointed; (4) Sub-section (2) of Section 537 of Companies Act, 1956 is attracted and when it is read along with Section 29 of DRT Act, on facts, it would indicate that property sold to second respondent was under Section 29 of DRT Act and as such, the embargo under sub-section (1) of Section 537 is not attracted and hence,
16 sale in favour of second respondent is not void. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following judgments: (1) (2010) 158 Company Cases 789 (Madras)- SUBHASH KATHURIA SOLE PROPERIETOR, ANITHA INTERNATIONAL V/S DEVE SUGARS LIMITED THROUGH THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT AND 2 ORS. (2) AIR 2005 SC 1814- ANDHRA BANK V/S OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ANR. (3) AIR 2000 SC 1535-ALLAHABAD BANK V/S CANARA BANK AND ANOTHER 8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the pleadings as well as case laws pressed into service by respective learned Advocates, I am of the considered view that following points would arise for my consideration: (1) Whether Debt Recovery Tribunal through its Recovery Officer under the provisions of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is empowered to sell the assets of a company under liquidation at the instance of secured creditor, without leave of the Company
17 Court or without associating the official liquidator, despite deemed pari-passu charge of said assets in favour of official liquidator Under Section 529A of companies Act? (2) Whether sale of the assets of the company (in liquidation) made by Recovery Officer and certificate of sale issued thereof in favour of the second respondent is liable to be set aside and respondents should be directed to hand over the assets of the company (in liquidation) to the Official Liquidator? FACTUAL MATRIX: 9. A petition to winding up of the company Kritika Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., came to be filed on 19.06.1999 in Co.P.No.167/1999. Notice came to be ordered on 02.07.1999 as to why petition should not be admitted. Matter was heard and it came to be admitted on 30.03.2000. Advertisement was deferred and an opportunity was extended to the respondents to pay the debts. On 02.02.2001 advertisement was ordered. Accordingly notice has been carried out in Times of India dated 23.02.2001 by
18 notifying the hearing date of the Company Petition as 30.03.2001. By order dated 29.06.2006 said company petition came to be allowed and an order of winding up came to be passed. The Official Liquidator attached to the Company Court was appointed as liquidator of the company and was directed to take charge of all the properties and effects of the said company forthwith. 10. The secured creditor namely, Canara Bank (first respondent herein) had filed an application on 19.02.1997 before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A.No.194/1997 under Section 19 of DRT Act against said company i.e., Kritika Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. Application filed by the secured creditor before DRT came to be allowed on 26.06.2000. Thereafter Recovery Officer of DRT ordered for attachment of immovable property of the company (in liquidation) namely Industrial Plot No.67-G in Sy.No.205 measuring 4026 sq.ft situated at Bommasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Same was ordered to be brought for sale. Public notice for auction of sale came to be issued and auction came to be conducted and it was purchased by second respondent herein.
19 Confirmation of the sale was made in favour of second respondent and thereafter certificate of sale came to be issued in favour of second respondent. 11. Official Liquidator filed the present application on 06.03.2008 seeking for a declaration to declare the sale of assets of company (in liquidation) by respondent No.1 and 2 as void and for a direction to hand over the assets of company (in liquidation) to the Official Liquidator. 12. In order to examine the rival contentions, it would be necessary to note the list of dates chronologically with events for answering the points formulated above: Date Events 19.02.1997 Application in O.A.No.194/1997 was filed before DRT, Bangalore by R-1 Canara Bank 19.06.1999 Winding up petition in Co.P.No.167/1999 was filed against company by a creditor- Col.D.B.Singh 30.03.2000 Co.P.No.167/1999 was admitted 26.06.2000 O.A.No.194/1997 was allowed by DRT 23.02.2001 Date of advertisement in Co.P.No.167/1999 27.06.2005 Attachment order by Recovery Officer 02.10.2005 Public notice of auction sale issued by
20 Recovery Officer of DRT, to sell the immovable property. 05.10.2005 Date of auction by DRT 16.11.2005 Confirmation of sale in favour of R-2 02.02.2006 Certificate of sale of immovable property issued by DRT in favour of R-2 29.06.2006 Winding up petition CO.P 167/1999 was allowed 06.03.2008 C.A.190/2008 filed by O.L seeking return of immovable property sold in DRT auction. 25.11.2008 C.A.190/2008 allowed and sale was rendered void 07.07.2011 OSA 19/2009 c/w OSA 10/2009 filed by secured creditor and purchaser came to be allowed and matter remitted to Company Court 04.08.2011 Objection to C.A.No.190/2008 filed by R-2 PROVISIONS OF LAW: 13. The provisions of various law which have been pressed into service are extracted herein below since they would be necessary to analyse and adjudicate the points formulated herein above. Hence, they are extracted herein below:
21 COMPANIES ACT, 1956 446. SUITS STAYED ON WINDING UP ORDER:- (1) When a winding up order has been or the Official Liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of winding up order, shall be proceeded with, against the company, except by leave of the Tribunal and subject to such terms as the Tribunal may impose. (2) The Tribunal shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of- (a) any suit or proceeding by or against the company; (b) any claim made by or against the company (including claims by or against any of its branches in India); (c) any application made under Section 391 by or in respect of the company. (d) any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or arise in course of the winding up of the company; whether such suit or proceeding has been instituted, or is instituted, or such claim or question has arisen or arises or such application has been made or is made before or after the order for the winding up of the company, or before or after the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960. (3) Xxx
22 (4) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall apply to any proceeding pending in appeal before the Supreme Court or a High Court. 529. APPLICATION OF INSOLVENCY RULES IN WINDING UP OF INSOLVENT COMPANIES.- (1) In the winding up of an insolvent company, the same rules shall prevail and be observed with regard to- (a) (b) (c) Debts provable; The valuation of annuities and future and contingent liabilities; and The respective rights of secured and unsecured creditors; as are in force for the time being under the law of insolvency with respect to the estates of persons adjudged insolvent: [Provided that the security of every secured creditor shall be deemed to be subject to a pari passu charge in favour of the workmen to the extent of the workmen's portion therein, and, where a secured creditor, instead of relinquishing his security and proving his debt, opts to realise his security - (a) the liquidator shall be entitled to represent the workmen and enforce such charge; (b) any amount realised by the liquidator by way of enforcement of such charge shall be applied rateably for the discharge of workmen's dues; and
23 (c) so much of the debt due to such secured creditor as could not be realised by him by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this proviso or the amount of the workmen's portion in his security, whichever is less, shall rank pari passu with the workmen's dues for the purposes of section 529A.] (2) All persons who in any such case would be entitled to prove for and receive dividends out of the assets of the company, may come in under the winding up, and make such claims against the company as they respectively are entitled to make by virtue of this section: [Provided that if a secured creditor instead of relinquishing his security and proving for his debt proceeds to realise his security, he shall be liable to (pay his portion of the expenses) incurred by the liquidator (including a provisional liquidator, if any) for the preservation of the security before its realisation by the secured creditor.] (3) For the purposes of this section, section 529A and section 530, - (a) "workmen", in relation to a company, means the employees of the company, being workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947); (b) "workmen's dues", in relation to a company, means the aggregate of the following sums due from the company to its workmen, namely :
24 (i) all wages or salary including wages payable for time or piece work and salary earned wholly or in part by way of commission of any workman, in respect of services rendered to the company and any compensation payable to any workman under any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ; (ii) all accrued holiday remuneration becoming payable to any workman, or in the case of his death to any other person in his right, on the termination of his employment before, or by the effect of, the winding up order or resolution; (iii) unless the company is being wound up voluntarily merely for the purposes of reconstruction or of amalgamation with another company, or unless the company has, at the commencement of the winding up, under such a contract with insurers as is mentioned in section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) rights capable of being transferred to and vested in the workman, all amounts due in respect of any compensation or liability for compensation under the said Act in respect of the death or disablement of any workman of the company;
25 (iv) (c) all sums due to any workman from a provident fund, a pension fund, a gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the workmen, maintained by the company; "Workmen s portion", in relation to the security of any secured creditor of a company, means the amount which bears to the value of the security the same proportion as the amount of the workmen's dues bears to the aggregate of (i) (ii) the amount of workmen's dues ; and the amounts of the debts due to the secured creditors. 529A. OVERRIDING PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in the winding up of a company - (a) (b) (c) workmen's dues; and Debts due to secured creditors to the extent such debts rank under clause of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 529 pari passu with such dues, shall be paid in priority to all other debts.
26 (2) The debts payable under clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be paid in full, unless the assets are insufficient to meet them, in which case they shall abate in equal proportion. 537. AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN ATTACHMENTS, EXECUTIONS ETC., IN WINDING UP BY TRIBUNAL. - (1) Where any company is being wound up by Tribunal- (a) (b) any attachment, distress or execution put in force, without leave of the Tribunal against the estate or effects of the company, after the commencement of the winding up; or any sale held, without leave of the Tribunal of any of the properties or effect of the company after such commencement] shall be void. (2) Nothing in this section applies to any proceedings for the recovery of any tax or impost or any dues payable to the Government] Offences antecedent to or in course of winding up. RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1993 19(19): Where a certificate of recovery is issued against a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, the Tribunal may order the sale proceeds of
27 such company to be distributed among its secured creditors in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 and to pay the surplus if any, to the Company. 29:--- Application of certain provisions of Income Tax Act ---- The provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 as in force from time to time shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modification as if the said provisions and the rules referred to the amount of debts due under this Act instead of to the income tax Provided that any reference under the said provisions and the Rules to the assessee shall be construed as a reference to the defendant under this Act. 34:- Act to have overriding effect:--- (1) save as provided under sub section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (2) The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Industrial Financial Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951), the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of
28 1963), the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, (62 of 1984), the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986) and the Small Industries Development Bank of India, 1989 (39 of 1989). THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 35: The Provisions of this Act to override other laws: -- The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 SECTION 32:- Procedure of District Judge in respect of applications under Section 31:- (10) Where proceedings for liquidation in respect of an industrial concern have commenced before an application is made under sub-section (1) of section 31, nothing in this section shall be construed as giving to the Financial Corporation any preference over the other creditors of the industrial concern not conferred on it by any other law. SECTION 46-B. Effect of Act on other laws:--- The provisions of this Act and of any rules or orders made thereunder shall
29 have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in the memorandum or articles of association of an industrial concern or in any other instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act, but save as aforesaid, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being applicable to an industrial concern. ANALYSIS OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS 14. The underlying object of Section 446 is to ensure that assets of the Company (under liquidation) are brought under the control of the winding up/company Court to avoid, wherever possible, litigation and to ensure that all matters in dispute which are capable of being expeditiously disposed of by the company Court is taken up by that Court. This would subserve an important purpose inasmuch as, it would be the responsibility of the Company Court to ensure that there would be proper winding up and dissolution of such company. The object of the winding up of a company by the Court is to ensure the protection of interest of creditors, workmen and realisation of its assets with a view to equitably distribute such proceed amongst those entitled to. This section is intended to safeguard the assets of the
30 company (in liquidation) against wasteful or unwarranted expensive litigation in regard to matters capable of being determined expeditiously and cost effectively by the winding up or company court itself. To avoid any conflicting decision being rendered by different Courts, the Company Court would be empowered to stay such proceedings unless permitted by it and vests such Company Court itself to entertain and dispose of such suit or proceeding initiated against Company (In liquidation) and also adjudicate the priorities. 15. Section 529 seeks to introduce into winding up proceedings the insolvency Rules as regards debts and liabilities provable. It applies to the winding up of an insolvent company and the laws of insolvency for the time being in force with respect to the estates of persons adjudged insolvent. Though every company in liquidation may presumably be treated as coming under the Section, unless its assets are shown to be sufficient to meet its liabilities in full including interest and the expenses of winding up or in other words it means a company which is being wound up on account of its inability to pay its debts. However, this
31 Section ceases to be applicable as soon as it is found that the company, in the course of winding up, is not insolvent. 1 st Proviso to Section 529 came to be introduced by Act 35 of 1985 making it clear that the security of secured creditor would be deemed to be subject to a pari-passu charge in favour of the workmen to the extent of the workmen s dues. Section 529A which also came to be inserted by Act 35 of 1985 enabled the legitimate dues of the workers to rank on pari-passu with secured creditors and even above the dues to the Government in the event of winding up of a company. 1 st proviso to Section 529(1) and 529A, which were introduced by Act 35 of 1985 would ensure that a secured creditor who intends to realise his security by remaining outside the winding up will have to act in association with the Official Liquidator who represent the workman while selling the assets of the Company (in liquidation). The status of the secured creditor is conferred on the workman by operation of law i.e., by virtue of Section 529, 529A and 530 conferring substantial rights and benefits on the workmen of a closed undertaking and such workmen would get pari-passu charge over the assets of the
32 Company (in liquidation) along with the secured creditors. Perusal of Section 537 would indicate that if any attachment, distress or execution is put in force without leave of the Company Court against the estate or effects of the Company (in liquidation) after commencement of winding up or any sale held of any of the properties or effects of such company without leave of the Company Court same would be void. However, the exception is relating to proceedings initiated for recovery of any tax or dues payable to the Government. 16. To recover any debt due from any person, an application to jurisdictional tribunal Under Section 19 of DRT Act in the prescribed form can be filed by a Bank or a financial institution. After issuing notice to the other side and on examination of pleadings and scrutiny of material evidence tribunal would adjudicate the claim. If the claim is admitted Tribunal will issue Recovery Certificate in favour of applicant bank or financial institution as the case may be. Under sub-section (12) it is empowered to pass interim order of injunction or stay or attachment. Under sub-section (19)
33 of Section 19 of the DRT Act, Tribunal can order the sale proceeds of a company in respect of which certificate of recovery is issued to be distributed amongst its secured creditors in accordance with the provisions of Section 529A of the Companies Act and pay the surplus to the Company if any. The provisions of Section 34(1) of the DRT Act, overrides other laws to the extent of inconsistency. Section 35 of SAFRESI Act is in parimateria with Section 34 of DRT Act. 17. Under sub-section (10) of Section 32 of SFC Act the secured creditor cannot be construed to have a preference over other creditors of a industrial concern unless the proceedings for liquidation in respect of such industrial concern having commenced before an application is made under sub-section (1) of Section 31. CASE LAW ANALYSIS 18. Interpretation of Section 442, 537 and 466 of Companies Act, 1956 came up for consideration before the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of ALLAHABAD BANK vs CANARA BANK reported in (2000)4 SCC 406- and after
34 considering the rival contentions, following six points came to be formulated: 13. From the aforesaid contentions, the following points arise for consideration: (1) Whether in respect of proceedings under the RDB Act at the stage of adjudication for the money due to the Banks or financial institutions and at the stage of execution for recovery of monies under the RDB Act, the Tribunal and the Recovery Officers are conferred exclusive jurisdiction in their respective spheres? (2) Whether for initiation of various proceedings by the Banks and financial institutions under the RDB Act, leave of the Company Court is necessary under Sections 537 before a winding up order is passed against the Company or before provisional liquidator is appointed under section 446(1) and whether the Company Court can pass orders of stay of proceedings before the Tribunal, in exercise of powers under section 442? (3) Whether after a winding up order is passed under Section 446 (1) of the Company Act or a provisional liquidator is appointed, whether the Company Court can stay proceedings under the RDB Act, transfer them to itself and also decide questions of liability, execution, and priority under section 446 (2) and (3) read with sections 529, 529A and 530 etc. of the Companies Act or whether these questions are all within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal?
35 (4) Whether, in case it is decided that the distribution of monies is to be done only by the Tribunal, the provisions of section 73 CPC and sub-section (1) and (2) of section 529, section 530 of the Companies Court also apply apart from section 529A - to the proceedings before the Tribunal under the RDB Act? (5) Whether in view of provisions in section 19(2) and 19(19) as introduced by Ordinance 1/2000, the Tribunal can permit the appellant Bank alone to appropriate the entire sale proceeds realised by the appellant except to the limited extent restricted by section 529A? Can the secured creditors like the Canara Bank claim under section 19(19) any part of the realisations made by the Recovery Officer and is there any difference between cases where the secured creditor opts to stand outside the winding up and where he goes before the Company Court? (6) What is the relief to be granted on the facts of the case since the Recovery Officer has now sold some properties of the company and the monies are lying partly in the Tribunal or partly in this Court? 19. On the issue of exercise of exclusive jurisdiction under Recovery of Debts due to Bank by the Tribunal and the Recovery officer in their respective spheres, Apex Court considered the reports of the Committees constituted by the appropriate Government to examine the need for passing of
36 an Act, on account of large sums of monies due to Banks and Financial Institutions had been locked up, and it has been held by the Apex Court that jurisdiction of the Tribunal in regard to adjudication of claim under DRT Act is exclusive and DRT alone has to decide such applications filed for recovery of debts due to Bank or financial institution and no other Court or authority much less, the Civil Court or the Company Court can go into the said question relating to liability and recovery except as provided under the Act. It has been held as under: 21. In our opinion, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in regard to adjudication is exclusive. The RDB Act requires the Tribunal alone to decide applications for recovery of debts due to Banks or financial institutions. Once the Tribunal Passes an order that the debt is due, the Tribunal has to issue a certificate under Section 19(22) (formerly under section 19(7)) to the Recovery Officer for recovery of the debt specified in the certificate. The question arises as to the meaning of the word 'recovery' in Section 17 of the Act. It appears to us that basically the Tribunal is to adjudicate the liability of the defendant and then it has to issue a certificate under Section 19(22). Under Section 18, the jurisdiction of any other court or authority which would otherwise have had jurisdiction but for the provisions of the Act, is ousted and the power to adjudicate upon the liability
37 is exclusively vested in the Tribunal. (This exclusion does not however apply to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or of a High Court exercising power under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution). This is the effect of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act. 22. We hold that the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the RDB Act are exclusive so far as the question of adjudication of the liability of the defendant to the appellant Bank is concerned. (ii) execution of Certificate by Recovery Officer: Is his jurisdiction exclusive 23. Even in regard to execution, the jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer is Exclusive. Now a procedure has been laid down in the Act for recovery of the debt as per the certificate issued by the Tribunal and this procedure is contained in Chapter V of the Act and is covered by Sections 25 to 30. It is not the intendment of the Act that while the basic liability of the defendant is to be decided by the Tribunal under Section 17, the Banks/Financial institutions should go to the Civil Court or the Company court or some other authority outside the Act for the actual realisation of the amount. The certificate granted under Section 19(22) has, in our opinion, to be executed only by the Recovery Officer. No dual jurisdictions at different stages are contemplated. Further, section 34 of the Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of the RDB Act. That section reads as follows:
38 "Section 34 (1): Act to have overriding effect- (1) Save as otherwise provided in subsection (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (2) The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951), the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963),the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 (62 of 1984) and the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986). The provisions of section 34(1) clearly state that the RDB Act overrides other laws to the extent of 'inconsistency'. In our opinion, the prescription of an exclusive Tribunal both for adjudication and execution is a procedure clearly inconsistent with realisation of these debts in any other manner. 24. There is one more reason as to why it must be held that the jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer is exclusive. The Tiwari Committee which recommended the
39 constitution of a Special Tribunal in 1981 for recovery of debts due to Banks and financial institutions stated in its Report that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal must relate not only in regard to the adjudication of the liability but also in regard to the execution proceedings. It stated in Annexure XI of its Report that all "execution proceedings" must be taken up only by the Special Tribunal under the Act. In our opinion, in view of the special procedure for recovery prescribed in Chapter V of the Act, and section 34, execution of the certificate is also within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer. 38. At the same time, some High Courts have rightly held that the Companies Act is a general Act and does not prevail under the RDB Act. They have relied upon Union of India vs. India Fisheries (P) Ltd., 25. Thus, the adjudication of liability and the recovery of the amount by execution of the certificate are respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the Recovery Officer and no other court or authority much less the civil Court or the Company Court can go into the said questions relating to the liability and the recovery except as provided in the Act. Point 1 is decided accordingly. 20. Certain provisions in the Companies Act, 1956 came to be inserted simultaneously, namely proviso to subsection (1) of Section 529, portion of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 529, Explanation thereto and sub-section (3) of
40 section 529 together with Section 529A as also the words subject to provisions of Section 529A found in Section 530, omission of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 530 and insertion of clause (bb) to sub-section (8) of Section 530 were carried out simultaneously by Companies (Amendment) Act, 1985 i.e., (Act 35 of 1985). Whereas, sub-section (19) of Section 19 of DRT Act came to be introduced by Ordinance i.e., subsequent to insertion of proviso to Section 529 and introduction of Section 529A. In this background, Apex Court examined as to which law would prevail over the other namely when monies are realised by secured creditor under the DRT Act, it has been held that question of priorities among the banks and financial institutions and other creditors can be decided only by a Tribunal under the DRT Act and in accordance with Section 19(19) read with Section 529A of Companies Act. It has been further held that leave of the Company Court is not necessary for initiating or continuing the proceedings under the DRT Act. After analysing the provisions above referred to it has been held by the Apex Court as under: 45. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Mayur Syntex Ltd. Vs. Punjab and
41 Sind Bank [(67)1977 Delhi Law Times 836] no doubt supports the contention of the respondents that the Company Court's jurisdiction prevails over that of the Tribunal/ Recovery Officer under the RDB Act, 1993. The learned Company Judge in that case does, in fact, accept that a statute which is a general one vis-a-vis another statute can also be a special one, vis-a-vis yet another statute. But the Court, in our view, was not correct in its conclusion that, in this context, the Companies Act, 1956 was not a general statute. Further in the said judgment it was stated that the "non-obstante clause in section 34 of the RDB Act cannot apply because the Acts did not overlap. According to the High Court, there was no provision like Section 446 in the RDB Act laying down the procedure as to what should be done in case of the passing of a winding up order by the Company Court nor a provision for recovery of amounts due from a company against which a winding up petition was pending or was ordered or for distribution from a common pool. But, now section 19(19) introduced by the Ordinance 1/2000 clarifies and removes any such doubts in as much as it refers to execution and distribution of sale Proceeds by the Tribunal/ Recovery Officer. The observation that the RDB Act does not operate in the same field and hence, leave of the Company Court is necessary under Section 446(1), cannot therefore be accepted. We hold that the Delhi High Court s decision is not correctly decided. 49. The decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan Finance Corporation Vs. Official Liquidator (1963(2) Comp. LJ
42 309) relied upon for the respondent cannot be of any help. That was a case which concerned itself with the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951.Section 537 of the Companies Act was applied and it was held that the Companies Act did not yield to the provisions of the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951. There was no provision in the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 like section 34 which gave overriding effect to its provisions. 50. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that at the stage of adjudication under section 17 and execution of the certificate under section 25 etc. the provisions of the RDB Act, 1993 confer exclusive jurisdiction in the Tribunal and the Recovery Officer in respect of debts payable to Banks and financial institutions and there can be no interference by the Company Court under Section 442 read with section 537 or under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. In respect of the monies realised under the RDB Act, the question of priorities among the Banks and financial institutions and other creditors can be decided only by the Tribunal under the RDB Act and in accordance with section 19(19) read with section 529A of the Companies Act and in no other manner. The provisions of the RDB Act, 1993 are to the above extent inconsistent with the Provisions of the Companies act, 1956 and the latter Act has to yield to the provisions of the former. This position holds good during the pendency of the winding up petition against the debtor-company and also after a winding up order is passed. No leave of the Company Court is necessary for initiating
43 or continuing the proceedings under the RDB Act, 1993. Points 2 and 3 are decided accordingly in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. In the above said case, dispute was between two Nationalised Banks namely, Allahabad Bank which had obtained a money decree against the Debtor company M/s.M.S.Shoes (East) Company Limited from DRT, Delhi under the DRT Act and Canara Bank whose claim as a secured creditor was still pending before same Tribunal at Delhi, against the same Company. The Company Court had passed an order staying the sale proceedings taken out by Allahabad Bank before the Recovery Officer under the DRT Act since publication for winding up of said company was pending before Delhi High Court. The order of staying the sale proceedings was assailed by Allahabad Bank before Apex Court. The secured creditor supported the order of stay as against the contention of Allahabad Bank that Tribunal under the DRT Act can itself deal with the question of appropriation of sale proceeds. In this background, points formulated at paragraph 13 already extracted herein above came to be formulated. While answering as to whether the