advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation General Regulations, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) had also been referred to by the learned counsel. The said Regulation 22 reads as under : “22. The amounts repayable to the Corporation under sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Act shall be paid from time to time by, - (a) the liquidator as soon as the realisations and other amounts in his hands, after making provision for expenses payable by that time, are sufficient to enable him to declare a dividend of not less than one paisa. in the Rupee to each depositor. (b) the insured bank or the transferee bank, as the case may be, as soon as the realisations and other amounts in its hands, after making provision for expenses payable by that time in respect of such realisations or other amounts in its hands are sufficient to enable it after the date of coming into force of the scheme referred to in section 18 of the Act, to pay or credit in respect of each depositor a sum not less than one paisa in the Rupee.” The aforestated Regulation 22 also provides that the Official Liquidator, after making necessary provision for the expenses in relation to the liquidation proceedings and for declaration of dividend, as prescribed in the Regulations, has to make payment to the Corporation In view of the aforestated statutory legal provision, in our opinion, the High Court should not have given the direction which, if complied with, would run contrary to the statutory provisions incorporated in the Act. Even if one looks at the entire issue from different point of view, one would believe that all the depositors have by and large equal right. If the amount deposited is less than Rs.1 lakh, each depositor gets the amount in full, but if the deposit is exceeding Rs.1 lakh, then only the amount which is in excess of Rs.1 lakh may not be given to the depositor, unless the bank in liquidation is having sufficient funds which can be given to all on pro-rata basis after providing for expenditure in the liquidation proceedings and after repaying the amount to the Corporation as per the provisions of the Act. The Act in a way guarantees repayment of Rs.1 lakh to each depositor. The High Court or any other authority has no power to direct payment in excess of Rs.1 lakh by ignoring statutory provisions of the Act and the Regulations made thereunder.

   Deposit Insurance and  Credit  Guarantee  Corporation (hereinafter referred  to  as  ‘the  Corporation’). = Theni  Cooperative  Urban Bank Ltd., doing its banking business mainly  in  District  Theni  of  Tamil Nadu.  The aforestated Bank, which had been registered as  an  insured  bank with the Corporation on 1st July, 1980, was in  financial  difficulties  and therefore, the Reserve Bank  of  India  had  cancelled  its  licence  to  do banking business under Section 22 of the Banking Regulations  Act,  1949  on 23rd May, 2002.  However, the said order cancelling the licence was kept  in abeyance for a period of six months by an order dated 7th June, 2002.      Ultimately, the said bank could  not  discharge  its  obligations  and therefore, on 24th December, 2002, the Joint Registrar of  the  Co-operative Societies, Theni, was appointed as  an  Official  Liquidator  to  carry  out liquidation proceedings.=As the Corporation had insured the bank, as per the provisions of  the Act, the Corporation settled the  statutory  claims  of  the  depositors  by releasing a sum of Rs.3,26,87,846.12, and thereby maximum amount payable  to each depositor had been paid.   Thus, the amount which the  Corporation  was liable to pay to the depositors under the provisions of Section  16  of  the Act had been paid by the Corporation through the Official Liquidator.=  Though the aforestated amount had been released  by  the  Corporation,
all the depositors could not be paid the entire amount  they  had  deposited
with the bank because the amount insured in respect of  each  depositor  was
only Rs.1 lakh.  So, those who had deposited more than one lakh rupees  with
the bank, were not paid the amount to the extent  to  which  their  deposits
exceeded Rs.1 lakh.=Ultimately, after hearing the learned counsel, the High Court  came  to  the
conclusion that the Corporation had no preferential  right  and  the  amount
which was with the Official Liquidator should have  been  distributed  among
the depositors.  The Official Liquidator as well as the Special Officer  had
been directed to carry out the said instructions within a particular  period
and thus the writ appeal had been disposed of.
  The Corporation was not a party before the High Court, but  the  right
of the  Corporation  to  get  back  the  amount  in  preference  over  other
depositors in pursuance of the provisions of the Act was adversely  affected
by virtue of the impugned judgment and therefore, the Corporation filed  the
Special Leave Petition which  has  now  been  converted  into  this  appeal.
 The Corporation was not represented before the learned  Single  Judge,
but at least before the Division Bench, the learned  counsel  appearing  for
the Official Liquidator had drawn attention of the Bench to the  aforestated
legal provisions of the Act.   Moreover, provisions of Regulation 22 of  the
Deposit Insurance and  Credit  Guarantee  Corporation  General  Regulations,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) had also  been  referred
to by the learned counsel.
The said Regulation 22 reads as under :

“22. The amounts repayable to  the  Corporation  under  sub-section  (2)  of
section 21 of the Act shall be paid from time to time by, -

(a) the liquidator as soon as the realisations  and  other  amounts  in  his
hands, after making  provision  for  expenses  payable  by  that  time,  are
sufficient to enable him to declare a dividend of not less than  one  paisa.
in the Rupee to each depositor.

(b) the insured bank or the transferee bank, as the case may be, as soon  as
the realisations and other amounts in its hands, after making provision  for
expenses payable by that time in  respect  of  such  realisations  or  other
amounts in its hands are sufficient to enable it after the  date  of  coming
into force of the scheme referred to in section 18 of the  Act,  to  pay  or
credit in respect of each depositor a sum not less than  one  paisa  in  the
Rupee.”



   The  aforestated  Regulation  22  also  provides  that  the  Official
Liquidator, after making necessary provision for the  expenses  in  relation
to  the  liquidation  proceedings  and  for  declaration  of  dividend,   as
prescribed in the Regulations, has to make payment to the Corporation

In view of the aforestated statutory legal provision, in our  opinion,
the High Court should not have given the direction which, if complied  with,
would run contrary to the statutory provisions incorporated in the Act.

 Even if one looks at the entire issue from different  point  of  view,
one would believe that all the depositors have by and large equal right.  If
the amount deposited is less than Rs.1 lakh, each depositor gets the  amount
in full, but if the deposit is exceeding Rs.1 lakh,  then  only  the  amount
which is in excess of Rs.1 lakh may not be given to  the  depositor,  unless
the bank in liquidation is having sufficient funds which  can  be  given  to
all on pro-rata basis after providing for  expenditure  in  the  liquidation
proceedings and after repaying the amount to  the  Corporation  as  per  the
provisions of the Act.   The Act in a way guarantees repayment of Rs.1  lakh
to each depositor.  The High Court or any other authority has  no  power  to
direct payment in excess of Rs.1 lakh by ignoring  statutory  provisions  of
the Act and the Regulations made thereunder.





                                                               REPORTABLE



                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.1035 OF 2008


DEPOSIT INSURANCE & CREDIT
GUARANTEE CORPORATION                 ... APPELLANT


                                   VERSUS

RAGUPATHI RAGAVAN & ORS.            ... RESPONDENTS


                                    WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1116, 1923, 1924, 1925,  1926,  1927,  1928,  1929,  1930,
1931, 1932, 1934 AND 1935 OF 2009, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5333, 5334, 5335,  5336
AND 5337-5339 OF 2012.

                               J U D G M E N T



ANIL R. DAVE, J.



1.    Judgment dated 20th November, 2006 delivered in Writ Appeal No.261  of
2006 by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has  been  challenged  in
the main appeal.  For the sake of convenience, we have considered  facts  of
the main case for deciding the common  issues  which  are  involved  in  all
these appeals.

2.    The appellant, who has approached this Court, was not a party  to  the
litigations before the High Court, but  has  been  constrained  to  approach
this Court as the direction given by the learned Single Judge as well as  by
the Division Bench of the High Court in the aforestated writ appeal  affects
the appellant adversely  and  therefore,  the  appellant  had  submitted  an
application for permission to file the Special Leave  Petition  against  the
aforestated judgment.  Permission was granted to the present  appellant  and
therefore, this appeal.

3.    The appellant is Deposit Insurance and  Credit  Guarantee  Corporation
(hereinafter referred  to  as  ‘the  Corporation’).   The  function  of  the
Corporation is to insure  deposits  made  by  depositors  with  the  banking
companies  and  the  said  Corporation  has  been  constituted   under   the
provisions of Section 3(1) of the Deposit  Insurance  and  Credit  Guarantee
Corporation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).  The  Act  had
been enacted with a very laudable purpose.  Normally a person  deposits  his
savings or invests his money by way of a saving  bank  account  or  a  fixed
deposit with banking companies, including cooperative banks, without  taking
much care of ascertaining financial condition of the bank, possibly  because
of the trust reposed by him in the Reserve Bank of  India,  which  regulates
the banking business in the country.

4.    In the  event  of  any  financial  difficulty  faced  by  the  banking
company, the depositors would generally lose  substantial  amount  of  their
deposits, in whichever form  made,  because  normally  at  the  end  of  the
winding-up proceedings, the unsecured creditors get very little amount.   So
as to safeguard the interest of such  small  depositors  or  investors,  who
have parked their funds with banking companies, the Act had been enacted  to
insure the amount deposited by the depositors and to guarantee repayment  of
certain amount to such investors, when the banking company is  in  financial
difficulty and is ultimately wound-up.

5.    In the instant case, we are concerned  with  Theni  Cooperative  Urban
Bank Ltd., doing its banking business mainly  in  District  Theni  of  Tamil
Nadu.  The aforestated Bank, which had been registered as  an  insured  bank
with the Corporation on 1st July, 1980, was in  financial  difficulties  and
therefore, the Reserve Bank  of  India  had  cancelled  its  licence  to  do
banking business under Section 22 of the Banking Regulations  Act,  1949  on
23rd May, 2002.  However, the said order cancelling the licence was kept  in
abeyance for a period of six months by an order dated 7th June, 2002.

6.    Ultimately, the said bank could  not  discharge  its  obligations  and
therefore, on 24th December, 2002, the Joint Registrar of  the  Co-operative
Societies, Theni, was appointed as  an  Official  Liquidator  to  carry  out
liquidation proceedings.

7.    As stated hereinabove,  the  said  bank  had  been  insured  with  the
Corporation and therefore, the Official Liquidator prepared a claim list  of
the depositors etc. as per the provisions of  Section  17  of  the  Act  and
forwarded the same to the Corporation on 21st May, 2003.

8.    As the Corporation had insured the bank, as per the provisions of  the
Act, the Corporation settled the  statutory  claims  of  the  depositors  by
releasing a sum of Rs.3,26,87,846.12, and thereby maximum amount payable  to
each depositor had been paid.   Thus, the amount which the  Corporation  was
liable to pay to the depositors under the provisions of Section  16  of  the
Act had been paid by the Corporation through the Official Liquidator.

9.    It is pertinent to note that  the  Corporation  does  not  insure  the
entire amount paid by all the depositors.  According to  the  provisions  of
Section 16 of the Act, at the relevant time the amount which was insured  in
respect of each depositor of the said bank  was  Rs.1  lakh  and  therefore,
every depositor was paid the amount of  deposit  or  a  sum  of  Rs.1  lakh,
whichever was less.

10.   Though the aforestated amount had been released  by  the  Corporation,
all the depositors could not be paid the entire amount  they  had  deposited
with the bank because the amount insured in respect of  each  depositor  was
only Rs.1 lakh.  So, those who had deposited more than one lakh rupees  with
the bank, were not paid the amount to the extent  to  which  their  deposits
exceeded Rs.1 lakh.

11.   In the aforestated background, Writ  Petition  Nos.6768  and  7372  of
2005 had been filed in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High  Court  by  some
of the depositors praying that the  amount  which  had  remained  unpaid  on
their fixed deposits be directed to be paid to them by the  Joint  Registrar
of the Co-operative Societies,  who  had  been  appointed  as  the  Official
Liquidator.  In the  said  petitions,  the  aforestated  officer,  i.e.  the
Official Liquidator as well  as  the  Special  Officer,  Theni  Co-operative
Urban  Bank  Ltd.  were  impleaded  as  respondents.    After  hearing   the
concerned parties, by an order dated 27th July,  2005,  the  learned  Single
Judge was pleased to direct the Special Officer to pay the amount  deposited
by the depositors with accrued interest thereon  within  8  weeks  from  the
date of receipt of a copy of the said order by the  Special  Officer.   Upon
perusal of the said order, it appears  that  the  said  petitions  had  been
disposed of at an admission stage and even before any  reply  was  filed  on
behalf of the Official Liquidator.

12.   Be that as it may, the said order was challenged  by  the  respondents
by filing Writ Appeal No.261 of  2006.   At  the  time  of  hearing  of  the
appeal, the learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  Official  Liquidator  had
submitted before the High Court  that  the  bank  had  been  ordered  to  be
wound–up on 24th  December,  2002,  and  an  Official  Liquidator  had  been
appointed, who had disbursed the amount received from the  Corporation.   It
had also been submitted before the High Court that upon disbursement of  the
amount received from the Corporation, the balance amount at the disposal  of
the Official Liquidator was to be refunded to the  Corporation  as  per  the
provisions of the Act as the Corporation had a preference over the claim  of
the depositors, who had already received Rs.1  lakh  from  the  Corporation.
Ultimately, after hearing the learned counsel, the High Court  came  to  the
conclusion that the Corporation had no preferential  right  and  the  amount
which was with the Official Liquidator should have  been  distributed  among
the depositors.  The Official Liquidator as well as the Special Officer  had
been directed to carry out the said instructions within a particular  period
and thus the writ appeal had been disposed of.

13.   The Corporation was not a party before the High Court, but  the  right
of the  Corporation  to  get  back  the  amount  in  preference  over  other
depositors in pursuance of the provisions of the Act was adversely  affected
by virtue of the impugned judgment and therefore, the Corporation filed  the
Special Leave Petition which  has  now  been  converted  into  this  appeal.
These are the circumstances in which this appeal has been placed  before  us
for hearing.

14.   According to the learned counsel for the Corporation,  the  directions
given by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division  Bench  in  appeal
by the High Court are contrary to the provisions of the Act.    The  learned
counsel had taken us through the provisions of the Act,  more  particularly,
the provisions of Sections 16, 17, 21 and  22  and  the  provisions  of  the
Banking  Regulations  Act,  1949,  so  as  to  establish  the  case  of  the
Corporation to the effect that after  payment  by  the  Corporation  to  the
depositors to the extent to which the  deposits  had  been  guaranteed,  the
surplus should be put at the disposal of  the  Corporation  subject  to  the
provision of Section 21 of the Act.  Till the said surplus is  paid  to  the
Corporation, subject to the provisions regarding making payment  of  winding
up expenditure, dividend to be paid as per the provisions of Section  21  of
the Act, the depositors could not have been given any further  amount.   Any
payment to depositors at that stage would be contrary to the  provisions  of
the Act and by virtue of the orders passed by the High Court,  the  Official
Liquidator was directed to act contrary to the provisions of the Act.

15.   It had been submitted by the learned counsel that the High  Court  did
not consider any of the provisions of the  Act  or  the  provisions  of  the
Banking Regulations Act, 1949 before passing the impugned order.   According
to him, once each depositor is paid  the  amount  deposited  or  Rs.1  lakh,
whichever is less, the Official Liquidator of the  Bank  should  have  given
the amount to the Corporation as per the provisions of  Section  21  of  the
Act.  In view of the aforestated legal position, the  High  Court  committed
an error by giving a direction to the Official Liquidator  that  the  amount
which he had, should be distributed among the depositors.   Doing  so  would
be absolutely contrary to the Scheme and spirit of  the  Act.   The  learned
counsel had narrated the object with which the Act had been enacted and  the
Corporation had been set-up, which has been narrated hereinabove.

16.   On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing  for  the  depositors
had submitted that it was the duty of the Official Liquidator to  distribute
the amount which he had with him among the  depositors  as  it  is  done  in
insolvency/winding-up  proceedings.    According  to  him,  the  Corporation
having paid the amount which it had guaranteed to pay, had no right  to  get
any amount from the Official Liquidator as the bank had been paying  premium
to the Corporation  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act  and
therefore, it was the  duty  of  the  Corporation  to  disburse  the  amount
guaranteed among the depositors.  After paying the said amount,
the Corporation had no right of whatsoever type to get any amount  from  the
Official Liquidator or the Special Officer.

17.   We have heard the learned counsel at length and have  also  considered
some judgments referred to by them and the provisions of  the  Act  and  the
Banking Regulations Act, 1949.

18.   Upon hearing  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  parties  and
looking at the facts of the case, we  are  of  the  view  that  this  appeal
deserves to be allowed.  We note the fact that  Writ  Petition  Nos.6768  of
2005 and 7372 of 2005 had been finally disposed of at  an  admission  stage.
In the said petitions, the present appellant  Corporation  was  not  made  a
party, though it was stated before the learned Single Judge  that  according
to the statutory provisions of the Act, the Official Liquidator had to  make
payment to the Corporation.    In  view  of  the  said  submission,  in  our
opinion, it would have been better if the Corporation had been impleaded  as
one of the respondents.  In that event, the stand  of  the  Corporation  and
the provisions of the Act could have been known in  detail  by  the  learned
Single Judge.

19.   Be that as it may, now we are concerned with a direction given by  the
High Court to the Official Liquidator and the Special Officer of  the  Bank,
which is in liquidation, whereby they have been directed to pay  the  unpaid
amount to the depositors instead of paying the same to the Corporation.

20.   The object with which  the  Act  has  been  enacted  has  been  stated
hereinabove in a nutshell.  The object was to insure the depositors so  that
they may not have to stand in a queue before  the  Official  Liquidator  for
every paisa deposited by them with the concerned bank.  As on today, as  per
the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act, a sum  of  Rs.1  lakh  is  being
insured or guaranteed in respect of each depositor.  So a depositor is  safe
and he has not to wash his hands off his deposit if the amount deposited  by
him is less than Rs.1 lakh.  The Official Liquidator, as per the  provisions
of the Act, has  to  give  details  about  the  depositors  and  the  amount
deposited by them in a prescribed form within three months from the date  on
which the liquidation order is passed or from the  day  on  which  he  takes
charge, whichever is later and within two months from the date on which  the
details are submitted to the  Corporation,   the  Corporation  has  to  make
payment to the above extent either to the depositors  directly  or  to  them
through the Official Liquidator.

21.   Thus, as per the  above-referred  Scheme,  each  depositor,  including
each original petitioner, must have received Rs.1  lakh  from  the  Official
Liquidator.  Initially, upon the bank being  ordered  to  be  wound-up,  the
original petitioners and other depositors had a right to recover  Rs.1  lakh
or the amount deposited, whichever was less, from  the  Official  Liquidator
and the said amount must had been paid  to  them  when  the  petitions  were
filed.

22.   According to the provisions of the Act, after  payment  to  the  above
extent is made to  each  depositor,  if  any  amount  is  available  at  the
disposal of the Official Liquidator, which he might have recovered from  the
borrowers or from other sources, he has  to  pay  the  said  amount  to  the
extent to which the amount had been paid  by  the  Corporation  as  per  the
provisions of Section 21 of the Act.  Section 21 of the Act reads  as  under
:-

“21. (1) Where any amount has been paid under section 17 or  section  18  or
any provision therefor has been  made  under  section  20,  the  Corporation
shall furnish to the liquidator or to the insured bank or to the  transferee
bank, as the case may be, information as  regards  the  amount  so  paid  or
provided for.

2) On receipt of the  information  under  sub-section  (1),  notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the  time  being  in
force, -

(a) the liquidator shall, within such time and in  such  manner  as  may  be
prescribed, repay to the Corporation out of the amount, if  any  payable  by
him in respect of any deposit such sum or sums as make up  the  amount  paid
or provided for by the Corporation in respect of that deposit;

(b) the insured bank or, as the case may be,  the  transferee  bank,  shall,
within such time and in such manner as  may  be  prescribed,  repay  to  the
Corporation out of the amount, if any, to be paid or credited in respect  of
any deposit after the date of the coming into force of the  scheme  referred
to in section 18, such sum or sums as make up the amount  paid  or  provided
for by the Corporation in respect of that deposit.”


23.   It is pertinent to note that when the  Corporation  had  paid  to  the
depositors as per the insurance scheme under the Act, the  Corporation  gets
a right under the aforestated Section 21 of the Act to get  money  from  the
Official Liquidator.

24.    One  has  to  look  at  sub-Section  (2)  of  Section  21,  which  in
unequivocal terms, directs the Official Liquidator to make  the  payment  to
the  Corporation  as  it  has  been  stated   in   the   said   sub-section,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for  the
time being in force.  Thus, the Official Liquidator, as per clause  2(a)  of
Section 21 of the Act, has to repay the amount to the Corporation.

25.   The aforestated Section 21 not only makes it obligatory  on  the  part
of the Official Liquidator to repay the said amount to the Corporation,  but
it also clarifies that there shall not be any  other  preferential  creditor
who would be getting any  amount  from  the  Official  Liquidator  till  the
amount payable under Section 21 of the Act is paid to the Corporation.

26.   In view of the aforestated clear legal position, in our  opinion,  the
High Court was not  right  when  it  directed  the  Official  Liquidator  to
determine  the  mode  of  payment  by  ignoring  the  aforestated  statutory
provision.

27.   The Corporation was not represented before the learned  Single  Judge,
but at least before the Division Bench, the learned  counsel  appearing  for
the Official Liquidator had drawn attention of the Bench to the  aforestated
legal provisions of the Act.   Moreover, provisions of Regulation 22 of  the
Deposit Insurance and  Credit  Guarantee  Corporation  General  Regulations,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) had also  been  referred
to by the learned counsel. The said Regulation 22 reads as under :

“22. The amounts repayable to  the  Corporation  under  sub-section  (2)  of
section 21 of the Act shall be paid from time to time by, -

(a) the liquidator as soon as the realisations  and  other  amounts  in  his
hands, after making  provision  for  expenses  payable  by  that  time,  are
sufficient to enable him to declare a dividend of not less than  one  paisa.
in the Rupee to each depositor.

(b) the insured bank or the transferee bank, as the case may be, as soon  as
the realisations and other amounts in its hands, after making provision  for
expenses payable by that time in  respect  of  such  realisations  or  other
amounts in its hands are sufficient to enable it after the  date  of  coming
into force of the scheme referred to in section 18 of the  Act,  to  pay  or
credit in respect of each depositor a sum not less than  one  paisa  in  the
Rupee.”



28.    The  aforestated  Regulation  22  also  provides  that  the  Official
Liquidator, after making necessary provision for the  expenses  in  relation
to  the  liquidation  proceedings  and  for  declaration  of  dividend,   as
prescribed in the Regulations, has to make payment to the Corporation.

29.   In view of the aforestated statutory legal provision, in our  opinion,
the High Court should not have given the direction which, if complied  with,
would run contrary to the statutory provisions incorporated in the Act.

30.   Even if one looks at the entire issue from different  point  of  view,
one would believe that all the depositors have by and large equal right.  If
the amount deposited is less than Rs.1 lakh, each depositor gets the  amount
in full, but if the deposit is exceeding Rs.1 lakh,  then  only  the  amount
which is in excess of Rs.1 lakh may not be given to  the  depositor,  unless
the bank in liquidation is having sufficient funds which  can  be  given  to
all on pro-rata basis after providing for  expenditure  in  the  liquidation
proceedings and after repaying the amount to  the  Corporation  as  per  the
provisions of the Act.   The Act in a way guarantees repayment of Rs.1  lakh
to each depositor.  The High Court or any other authority has  no  power  to
direct payment in excess of Rs.1 lakh by ignoring  statutory  provisions  of
the Act and the Regulations made thereunder.

31.   For the aforestated reason, we are of the view  that  the  High  Court
had exceeded  its  authority  while  giving  a  direction  to  the  Official
Liquidator, which is not in consonance with  the  statutory  provisions  and
therefore, we set aside the judgment and  order  delivered  by  the  learned
Single Judge  as  also  by  the  Division  Bench  and  direct  the  Official
Liquidator and the Special Officer to act in accordance with  the  statutory
provisions.

32.   The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1116, 1923, 1924,  1925,  1926,  1927,  1928,  1929,  1930,
1931, 1932, 1934 AND 1935 OF 2009



33.   So far as Appeal No.1116 of 2009 and similar  matters  are  concerned,
we record the fact that they have been filed at an interlocutory  stage  and
therefore, the said appeals are disposed of with a  direction  to  the  High
Court to decide the matters, which are pending before it, in  the  light  of
the law laid down hereinabove.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5333, 5334, 5335, 5336 AND 5337-5339 OF 2012


34.   In all the aforestated appeals, some compromise had  been  arrived  at
among the parties before the learned Single Judge, but  the  same  had  been
challenged before the Division Bench.   The Division Bench had  quashed  and
set aside the order, whereby the litigants had  entered  into  a  compromise
and the matters had been remanded to the learned Single Judge.   We  dismiss
the aforestated appeals as the matters have been  remanded  to  the  learned
Single Judge.  However, we  direct  that  the  present  appellant  shall  be
impleaded as a party-respondent before the learned Single Judge so that  all
Writ Petitions can be decided afresh after  considering  the  provisions  of
the Act and after hearing the present appellant.

35.   The appeals are, thus, disposed of with no order as to costs.




                                                      …………………………………………………….J
                                    (ANIL R. DAVE)



                                                      …………………………………………………….J
                                (DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 01, 2015.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.