T.A. No. 73 of 2002 DRT-III. Case: Central Bank of India Vs Tankrete India Ltd. and Ors.. Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals
| Case Number | T.A. No. 73 of 2002 DRT-III |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sandip Kumar Dutta and Kalyan Bhowmik, Advs. and For Respondents: None |
| Judges | D.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer |
| Issue | Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 2; Companies Act, 1956 - 529 and 529(A); Banking Regulation Act, 1978 - Sections 19(1), 21 and 21(A); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order 1, Rule 10 and 10(1) |
| Citation | II (2004) BC 60 |
| Judgement Date | July 19, 2002 |
| Court | Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals |
Judgment:
D.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer
-
Mr. Sandip Kumar Dutta, the learned Advocate along with Mr. Kalyan Bhowmik, the learned Advocate appears for the applicant Bank.
-
This day has been fixed for the purpose of hearing in TA/73 of 2002. Mr. Dutta has submitted in extenso the arguments serially in support of a claim of Rs. 2,08,87,480.64 p. for which the said applicant Bank has preferred one application on May 22, 1996 after impleading M/s. Tankrete India Ltd. and seven others.
-
Accordingly, out of such eight respondents impleaded by the applicant Bank, the two are the State respondents being respectively the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Out of such State respondents, the respondent No. 7 is a statutory body, with which on or about June 8, 1984, Mr. I.S.Tank (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No. 2), who was at the relevant time the Managing Director of respondent No. 1, entered into one transaction on the basis of the doctrine of ratification by the said Corporate respondent; and mortgaged all the immovable properties as belonging to the said respondent No. 1, prior to entering into transaction in the same manner with the applicant Bank.
-
In other words, it may be put that a second charge was created by the respondent No. 1, in favour of the present applicant Bank. Mr. Dutta, the learned Advocate has been found fair enough in not raising any claim against those State respondents, namely respondent Nos. 7 and 8; hence, those State respondents should be aptly described as ones meant for the purpose of impleadment of the proforma respondents.
-
The respondent No. 1 is though an artificial entity incorporated under Section 34 of Companies Act, 1956 (Act No. 1 of 1956), which is in reality a family company comprising four family members, who are belonging to the family of Tank, excepting the respondent No, 6 herein.
-
The said respondent No. 1 was previously a Private Ltd. Company, but later elevated to the rank of a Public Ltd. Company by way of conversion into the latter one on and about April 12, 1993. Such shall become evident from paragraph No. 5, page 8 of the application under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (No. 51 of 1993).
-
The story of debt liability of those respondents, which has been narrated in as well as crystallized from the application, the affidavit on evidence filed by the applicant Bank and a host of relevant documents relied upon by the applicant Bank, has moved in a zig-zag way.
-
From the stand point of territorial jurisdiction, it may appear legitimate that how a transaction taking place or occurring in Rampurhat, Dist. Birbhum, West Bengal or in Dist. Balsad, State of Gujarat shall fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Though such query ex facie appears to be a perplexing one, an acceptable reply to the above query may be made in the affirmative in the sense that here is involved substantially the question of succession theory.
-
By such succession theory is meant the succession of the 'locus' by dint of an internal arrangement or by a statutory provision. With such succession, the Trial Court has no relation. The Trial Court should look at the latest stage, a stage immediate before the institution of a case.
-
In the relevant paragraph, such succession has been discussed or thrown light; particularly the paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) of the said application ought to have been taken into consideration.
-
Rampurhat, Dist. Birbhum, W.B.; Dist. Valsad, State of Gujarat, are the places for grave concern for this Tribunal. For the reason of territorial jurisdiction; every such place has witnessed rightly the execution of several commercial documents or Banking documents by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the applicant Bank, which shall become evident for the relevant fact that more or less 25 commercial documents were the hallmark of commercial interaction entered into between the applicant Bank on the one hand and the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 on the other hand.
-
Such commercial transaction has also been found to have been accompanied by a number of terms and conditions amongst which the charge or levy of interest at the rate of 15% p.a. in consonance with the provisions under Section 21(A) read along with Section 21 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1978 is one; and such debt was sanctioned by way of several facilities like the cash credit facilities, cash credit hypothecation including the overdraft facilities.
-
The transaction started its journey since 1983 and ended on 1995. During such long period, money from the public coffer was admittedly enjoyed by those respondents coupled with the joint or several liabilities.
-
At paragraph 15 of the application filed on May 22, 1996, one may throw light on the existing liability by those respondents in this manner--
"After giving all moneys paid and/or realised on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and appropriating the credits towards debits in order of time there is now due and owing by the respondents to the applicant Bank in the said Cash Credit and Bank Guarantee Account a total sum of Rs. 2,08,87,418.64 p. with interest calculated upto 15th April, 1996 particulars whereof are given below:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial