236 of 1998 under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 117 of the Companies Court Rules, 1959 seeking leave of the Company Court to companymence the Execution proceedings before the Tribunal which had companye into existence in 1993 under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 hereinafter referred to as RDB Act .
46 of 1984.
He further submits that numberassets of the Company, moveable or immoveable, are available with the Official Liquidator.
Since in the present case the final decree was passed and became enforceable on 15.1.1987, the period of limitation for filing an execution application expired on 15.1.1999.
As such, there can be hardly any execution against the Company.
That petition was allowed by the Company Court vide order dated 18.12.1998 stating Learned companynsel for the parties are agreed that petitioner be granted leave to file execution petition in this Court.
1 of 1999 dated 11.01.1999 against M s. Bareja Knipping Fasteners Limited through the Official Liquidator, without impleading the appellants and Shri K.M.Bareja as parties to the Execution Petition.
The respondent Bank filed a Suit Company Petition No.
The decree holder Bank respondent in this appeal , then filed a third Execution Petition No.
Liberty to file proper petition against the other judgment debtors in accordance with law is granted as they have number been impleaded as parties in the Memo of Parties either of the execution petition of that of the application.
On this third Execution Petition, the High Court on 1.4.1999 passed the following order Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
1 of 1999 along with a fresh Memo of Parties before the High Court.
After companytest by the objectors, this second Execution Petition was dismissed by a Learned Single Judge of the High Court on 18.8.1994 holding that the decree passed against the Company cannot be satisfied by attachment and sale of properties belonging to other Companies, as these other Companies are different and distinct juristic personalities with different set of shareholders.
Thereafter on 4.9.1998, the respondent bank filed another Company Petition No.
However by the impugned order dated 26.5.2005 the High Court transferred the Execution Petition pending before it to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.
The aforesaid final decree dated 15.1.1987 stated as under It is hereby ordered and decreed that the mortgaged pledged hypothecated properties in the aforesaid preliminary decree mentioned or sufficient part thereof be sold, and that for the purpose of such sale the plaintiff petitioner shall produce before the Court or such officer as appointed, all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgage properties.
Petition stands disposed of.
1 L of 1999 by which the execution proceeding was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal , for being disposed of in accordance with law.
Ultimately, a decree was passed in favour of the Bank on 15.1.1987 in Company Application No.
Counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that the decree has already been executed against the assets and properties of the Company.
The High Court issued numberice on this Application and then on 22.7.1999 recalled the order dated 1.4.1999.
3 L of 1994 by which the decree holder bank sought attachment and sale of properties which did number belong to the judgment debtors.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.
Under Article 136 to the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period for applying for execution of any decree is 12 years from the date when the decree becomes enforceable.
22058 22059/2005 MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Leave granted.
On 3.1.2005, the decree holder Bank filed Company Application No.
And it is hereby ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid in the Court and shall be duly applied after deduction therefrom of expenses of the sale in the payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff petitioner under aforesaid preliminary decree and under any further orders that may have been passed in this petition and in payment of any amount which the Court may have adjudged due to the plaintiff petitioner for such companyts of the petition including companyts of this application and such companyts, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the first Schedule to Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendants respondents or other persons entitled to receive the same.
The appellant filed a reply stating that the High Court has numberjurisdiction to entertain this Application.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.5.2005 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Execution Petition No.
55 of 2005 under Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules, 1959 read with Sections 17 and 18 of RDB Act for transfer of the Execution Petition to the Tribunal.
57 of 1983 M s. S.P. Nagrath Co. vs. M s. Bareja Knipping Fasteners Ltd., the High Court vide order dated 23.10.1983 ordered winding up of the Company and an Official Liquidator was appointed who took over possession of the properties of the Company.
Thereafter, on 7.4.1999, the Bank instead of filing a petition as directed by the High Court, filed Company Application No.
The facts of the case are that on a Company Petition No.
46 of 1984 for recovery of Rs.
14,53,577/ with pendente lite and future interest.
19,07,800/ with future interest 12 per annum was passed by the High Court in favour of the decree holder Bank, the respondent herein, on 2.12.1985 in Company Petition No.
A preliminary decree for recovery of Rs.
