The Debts Recovery Tribunal by its order of February 12, 2004 dismissed the said application.
If the answer is in the affirmative, whether the action brought by them before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is for recovery of debts due to them from the appellant herein, and number due to any other person on whose behalf the aforesaid respondents are suing.
The Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 was repealed and the Board of Trustees referred to in Section 10 of the said Act stood dissolved.
The UTI also advanced a sum of Rs.25 crores against privately placed debentures.
The Appellate Order was challenged before the High Court of Bombay in writ petition No.5758 of 2004 which was also rejected on August 10, 2004.
The Appellate Tribunal held that respondents 1 and 2 were financial institutions as defined by Section 2 h i of the DRT Act and, therefore, the application by them for recovery of debts due from the appellant was maintainable under Section 19 of the DRT Act.
The Reserve Bank of India was companytemplating a restructure scheme pursuant to which all the creditors of the appellant companypany met in September, 2003 to companysider proposals for reduction in the rate of interest and fresh scheduling of re payment etc There was a general companysensus among the other creditors but the Unit Trust of India did number agree with the suggested scheme and instead filed a claim under the DRT Act being O.A. No.237 of 2003.
Arising out of SLP No.25643 OF 2004 P. SINGH, J. Special Leave granted.
At this stage, it may be numbered that under the UTI Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal Act, 2002 hereinafter referred to as UTI Act, 2002 , respondent No.1, the Administrator of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India, and respondent No.2 UTI Trustee Company Private Limited, were created.
In O.A. No.237 of 2003, the appellant filed a Misc.
Application on December 12, 2003 praying for dismissal of the O.A. on the ground that respondents 1 and 2 number being financial institutions within the meaning of that term in the DRT Act, the Tribunal under the Act had numberjurisdiction to entertain and decide the application filed by respondents 1 and 2 for alleged recovery of debts due to them.
The appellant Company accumulated liabilities exceeding Rs.1,000 crores and defaulted in its obligation to the UTI under the companymon loan agreement.
The factual background in which these questions arise is as follows Under a companymon loan agreement dated October 1, 1992 executed between the Unit Trust of India for short UTI , the Industrial Development Bank of India for short IDBI as the lead institution, IFCI, respondent No.4 herein, ICICI Ltd., respondent No.5 herein, and the appellant herein, a sum of Rs.10 crores was advanced to the appellant for its project on the terms and companyditions companytained therein.
Appeal No.132 of 2004.
The appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave impugning the judgment and order of the High Court.
In this appeal by special leave, the appellant M s. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corp. Ltd. has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated August 10, 2004 in Writ Petition No.5758 of 2004 upholding the order passed by the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Misc.
The High Court held that the action brought against the appellant companypany by respondents 1 and 2 herein for recovery of debts due to them, was rightly entertained by the Tribunal companystituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which had jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
The objection to the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal was taken at the threshold and, therefore, in this appeal we are number companycerned with the merit of the claims of respondents 1 and 2.
The appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal but the appeal was also dismissed on May 5, 2004.
The questions which arise for companysideration in this appeal are whether respondents 1 and 2, namely, Administrator of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India and UTI Trustee Company Private Limited are financial institutions within the meaning of that term in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 hereinafter referred to as the DRT Act .
