The petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the sale was also dismissed.
Vide order dated 21st July 1998 the execution application Nos.847/1997 and 1197/97 were dismissed.
This order was challenged by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the original defendants, by way of CRP No.2315/1998 alleging that the execution proceedings ought to have been stayed pending the decision of the proceedings under section 18 FH of the Regulation Act and section 22 of SICA.
The following issues were framed in the suit What is the companyrect amount that is due to the Plaintiff?
Both the petitions were dismissed by the execution companyrt.
19/1993 in the Sub Court, Trichur claiming damages of about Rs.30/ lacs from the Bank with 18 and 100 ex gratia payment on several grounds.
The Bank companytested the suit which was ultimately dismissed by Judgment Order dated 1st March 1996 and as numberappeal was filed thereagainst, this decision too attained finality.
O.P.11862 of 2000 in the Kerala High Court against the Government of Kerala, the Kerala Financial Corporation, the Syndicate Bank and Antony the auction purchaser alleging that the judgment debtors unit had been rendered sick on account of the arbitrary actions of the Bank and the Kerala Financial Corporation and that the proceedings in O.S. 732/1987 were without jurisdiction and, therefore, null and void and companysequently the decree in EP 819/1991 too was number enforceable.
It appears that while this spate of litigation was companytinuing, the judgment debtor filed various objections during the year 1994 97 in E.P.No.819/1991 alleging that the decree was number executable, and amongst others, two objection petitions being A.No.
It appears that while the objections were pending, the mortgaged property of judgment debtor No.2 was sold in auction by the executing companyrt for a sum of Rs.3.50 lacs which was deposited in Court and later released to the Bank and the sale was also companyfirmed and possession of the property handed over to Antony the auction purchaser.
As numberfurther proceedings were taken by the judgment debtors, these orders attained finality as well.
These loans were granted after cancellation of the earlier limits with a view to nurse respondent No.1 which was a sick unit.
The respondent No.1 Company also filed a writ petition on 7th April 2000 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India No.
No appeal was filed against this judgment with the result that it attained finality.
The Civil Revision and the Civil Writ Petition were heard together and both were allowed vide order dated 11th April, 2001 with the High Court observing that though the benefits of section 18FH of the Regulation Act and section 22 of the SICA were number available to the judgment debtor but they were entitled to succeed on other issues and companycluded that The petitioner has filed CRP 2315/98 challenging the companymon order passed by the execution companyrt in E.A.847/97 and A.1197/97 in E.P.819/91 in O.S.732/87.
The suit was accordingly decreed on 9th April 1990 and the defendants were given a years time for payment.
The petitioner was the judgment debtor in S.732/87, a suit instituted by the present 3rd respondent bank for realization of the entire arrears due from the petitioner.
In order to secure the advance, the Managing Director of respondent No.1, that is respondent No.2 and the other Directors executed several documents as securities and respondent No.2 also mortgaged his property to the Bank as a companylateral security.
It was also observed that the defendants were number entitled to the benefit of any scheme framed for the rehabilitation of sick units which had been formulated by the Reserve Bank of India.
As the respondent No.1 defaulted in the repayment of the loan, the Bank filed a suit for recovery S.No.732/1987 in the Trichur Civil Court seeking a decree for Rs.1,19,832.63 with interest 12.5 per annum in the Term Loan Account and Rs.2,09,120.75 in the Overdraft Account with interest 16 per annum companypounded quarterly.
Later the petitioner filed E.A.847/97 and A.1197/97 u s 18FH of the IDR Act sec.22 of the SICA and Sec.151 CPC for annulling the companyrt sale and also for staying further execution proceedings.
As the suit was instituted and proceeded in companylusion with the KFC and as both the above financial institutions have agreed before the 1st respondent for the revival of the industry granting companycessions and packages as evident from ext.
819/1991 was filed by the Bank on 20th December 1991 and while the matter was still pending, the judgment debtors the defendants in the above suit filed civil suit No.1340/1993 for injunction seeking an order prohibiting the execution of the decree rendered in O.S. No.732/1987 alleging that it was a nullity.
It is against the order in E.A. No.1197/1997 that the present revision was filed.This suit was dismissed for number prosecution on 15th November 1995 and an application for its restoration was also dismissed on 6th June 1997.
What is the companyrect rate of interest?
An application for execution of the decree EP No.
Whether the defendants are entitled to the benefit of the direction given by the Reserve Bank of India on sick units?
Reliefs and companyts.
NON REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.8491 OF 2001 HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts.
The trial companyrt observed that the Bank had number been harsh or arbitrary in dealing with the defendants and that it appeared that the defendants were number prepared to repay the loan despite the agreements that had been executed.
847/1997 and 1197/1997 were filed claming the protection and benefits available under section 22 1 of the Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985 hereinafter called SICA and under section 18FH of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 hereinafter called the Regulation Act praying that the execution proceedings be kept in abeyance till such time the proceedings initiated by the Government of Kerala for the revival of the unit were going on.
The decree holder filed E.P.819/91 and the property and the residential building belonging to the Managing Director of the companypany placed as security was sold in auction for an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs.
The Syndicate Bank, the appellant herein, sanctioned various credit limits to the respondent No.1 companypany including an overdraft limit of Rs.1,00,000/ and working capital term loan of Rs.1,00,000/ on certain prescribed companyditions.
In April 1993, the judgment debtors also filed a Pauper Petition No.
