CRP 8/2014. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | CRP 8/2014 |
| Judgement Date | June 01, 2020 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT
( THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MI ZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
C.R.P. NO. 8/ 2014
Meghalaya Gases Ltd. & 3 others
…..Petitioners
-Vs-
Union of I ndia & 4 others
…. Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE KALYAN RAI SURANA
For the petitioner : Mr. RL Yadav,
Mrs. K. Yadav, Adv.
For the respondents : Mr. SP Sarma, Adv.
Date of hearing &
judgment : 01.06.2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER ( oral)
Heard Mr. RL Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. SP Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. None appears on call for the other respondents.
2) By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of I ndia, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (for short, ‘the DRT’) in O.A. No.211/ 2010, on the ground that the respondent No.3 herein is not a financial institution or a Bank within the meaning of Section 2(d), Section 2(e), Section 2(h) & Section 2(i) of the Recovery of Debts
CRP No. 8 of 2014 Page 1 of 10
Due to Banks and Financial I nstitutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1993 Act’ ).
3) The respondent No.3, namely, Meghalaya I ndustrial Corporation Limited have filed an original application before the DRT claiming recovery of a sum of Rs.45,49,962/ - towards principal as on
30.09.2010 and Rs.50,19,519/ - towards interest till 30.09.2010 together with accrued interest at the rate of 14.75% per annum calculated up to the date of realization on actual payment. The said application was registered as OA No.211/ 2010. On receipt of notice for appearing in the said application, the petitioner No.1 filed petition No.260 dated 18.04.2011 questioning the maintainability of the OA No.211/ 2010. The learned DRT instead of deciding the preliminary issues, fixed the case on 22.11.2010 for filing written statement by the defendants. I n course of time, the defendants filed their written statement and in the same also they took plea over the preliminary issue of maintainability. On 25.01.2012, once again, a petition was filed before the DRT to hear the matter on preliminary issue of jurisdiction. However, the DRT, took a view that as there is no provision for hearing on preliminary issue under the Act, the preliminary issue of jurisdiction would be taken up at the time of final hearing. Similar prayer, once again, was made by the petitioner No.1 on
22.02.2012 and on its rejection, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing C.R.P. No.13/ 2012 challenging the said dismissal. Thereafter, this Court by an order dated 04.10.2012 directed the DRT to decide the preliminary issue. Accordingly, the preliminary issue was heard and the same was decided by the order dated 30.10.2013 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner on the point of jurisdiction by holding that the respondent No.3 herein is a financial institution and the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the application. Challenging the said order, the
CRP No. 8 of 2014 Page 2 of 10
present revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of I ndia.
4) The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the relevant provisions of the Act viz., Section 2(d), 2(e), Section (h) and Section (i) and Section 17 & 19 of the 1993 Act. He has referred to the provisions of Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 and also to the provisions of Section 9 of the I ndustrial Development Bank of I ndia Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the I DBI Act’). I t is submitted that the respondent No.3 has not been able to produce any notification under Section 4A of...
To continue reading
Request your trial