Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Liquidator vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 19 June, 2019
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMP No. 6710/2018 in CWP No.3/2006
Reserved on: 14.6.2019
.
Date of decision: 19.6.2019
The Liquidator, Hamirpur District Cooperative Marketing and
Consumer Society, Limited .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and ors. .....Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1Yes
For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur and Mr. Sudhir
Bhatnagar, Addl. A.Gs. with Mr.
Bhupinder Thakur, Dy.A.G. and Mr.
Ram Lal Thakur, Asstt. A.G. for the
respondentsState.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge:
The writ petition filed by the petitionerSociety was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 29.9.2009. As a matter of fact, the petitionerSociety had filed two writ petitions being CWP No.200/2005 and CWP No.3/2006. In CWP No. 200/2005, the petitionerSociety has challenged the proclamation of sale dated 16.2.2005, whereby its properties were sought to be put to auction to recover the amount of Rs.17,74,029/. This 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 2 amount was payable to the respondentsState towards arrears of sales tax. In CWP No. 3/2006, the petitionerSociety had prayed .
that the respondents be directed to put the entire property of the Society in an open auction and then settle its disputes.
2 It appears that the properties of the Society were put to sale in CWP No. 200/2005 and therefore, the petitioner did not press the writ petition and as regards CWP No. 3/2006, the same as observed above, was ordered to be dismissed.
3 Since the sale proceeds realized out of the sale amounting to Rs.31,25,000/ are lying deposited in the registry of this Court, therefore, the petitionerSociety has filed the instant application for release of the same.
4 Notice of the application was served upon the respondents and the same has been contested by respondent No.4, i.e. The CollectorcumAssistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Hamirpur and respondent No.5, i.e. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala (hereinafter referred as to the KCC Bank).
5 In reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4, it is averred that an amount of Rs.17,74,029/ as additional demand and an amount of Rs.18,88,055/ as interest worked out upto 30.6.2007 (total amount Rs.36,62,084/) is recoverable by respondent No.4 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 3 from the petitionerSociety. It is averred that under statutory provisions of Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968, .
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which by way of a special and non obstante provision contained in Section 16B overrides and creates a mandatory "first charge" on the property of the dealer and, therefore, respondent No.4 has preferential right to recover the amount towards sales tax.
6On the other hand, respondent No.5KCC Bank too has contested the application and has filed its reply that since the properties of the petitionerSociety stand mortgaged with the KCC Bank, therefore, it has first charge over the sale proceeds as interest amount of Rs.47,43,554/ as on 24.1.1996 along with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of award is payable as an outstanding repayment by the petitionerSociety to KCC Bank.
7 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents placed on record.
8 Section 16(b) of the Act reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, any amount of tax and penalty including interest, if any, payable by a dealer or any other person under this Act shall be a first charge on the property of the dealer or such other person."
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 49 The nature of priority given to the taxes payable to the State over other debts was considered by the Constitution Bench .
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Builders Supply Corporation v.
Union of India AIR 1965 SC 1061, wherein it was observed as under:.
"(i) The common law doctrine of the priority of Crown debts had a wide sweep but the question in the present appeal was the narrow one whether the Union of India was entitled to claim that the recovery of the amount of tax due to it from a citizen must take precedence and priority over unsecured debts dues from the said citizen to his other private creditors.
The weight of authority in India was strongly in support of the priority of tax dues.
(ii) The common law doctrine on which the Union of India based its claim in the present proceedings had been applied and upheld in that part of India which was known as `British India' prior to the Constitution. The rules of common law relating to substantive rights which had been adopted by this country and enforced by judicial decisions, amount to `law in force' in the territory of India at the relevant time within the meaning of Article 372(1). In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant that after the Constitution was adopted the position of the Union of India in regard to its claim for priority in the present proceedings had been alerted could not be upheld.
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 5(iii) The basic justification for the claim for priority of government debts rests on the wellrecognised principle that the State is entitled to raise money by taxation, otherwise it .
will not be able to function as a sovereign Government at all.
This consideration emphasises the necessity and wisdom of conceding to the State the right to claim priority in respect of its tax dues."
(emphasis supplied)
10 The ratio of the judgment in Builders Supply
r to
Corporation 's case (supra) was applied to the cases State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. National Iron and Steel Rolling Corporation (1995) 2 SCC 19, Dena Bank v.
Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. (2000) 5 SCC 694 and State of M.P. v. State Bank of Indore (2002) 10 SCC 441 in which statutory first charge was created in favour of the State in the matter of recovery of tax, penalty, interest etc..
11 In State of M.P. v. State Bank of Indore (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered an identical question whether statutory first charge created under Section 33C of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 would prevail over the bank's charge and it was held as under:
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 6" Section 33C creates a statutory first charge that prevails over any charge that may be in existence. Therefore, the charge thereby created in favour of the State in respect of the .
sales tax dues of the second respondent prevailed over the charge created in favour of the Bank in respect of the loan taken by the second respondent. There is no question of retrospectivity here, as, on the date when it was introduced, Section 33C operated in respect of all charges that were then in force and gave sales tax dues precedence over them."
(emphasis supplied) 12 Thereafter, the question whether first charge created by taxing statutes enacted by State legislatures will prevail over the debts due to secured creditors was considered by a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v.
State of Kerala, (2009) 4 SCC 94 and answered in affirmative. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether the first charge created on the property of the dealer by the legislations enacted by State legislatures for levy and collection of sales tax would prevail over the debts due to banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors, which could be recovered under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "DRT Act") and/or the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 7 and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Securitisation Act").
.
13 The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the relevant provisions contained in the DRT Act, the Securitisation Act and Sales Tax legislations of different States as also Section 14A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 11 of the EPF Act, Section 74 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, Section 25 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Section 30 of the Gift Tax Act, 1958, Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956, Section 46B of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and observed as under:
"112. Under Section 13(1) of the Securitisation Act, limited primacy has been given to the right of a secured creditor to enforce security interest vis`vis Section 69 or Section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act. In terms of that subsection, a secured creditor can enforce security interest without intervention of the court or tribunal and if the borrower has created any mortgage of the secured asset, the mortgagee or any person acting on his behalf cannot sell the mortgaged property or appoint a Receiver of the income of the mortgaged property or any part thereof in a manner which may defeat the right of the secured creditor to enforce security interest. This provision was enacted in the backdrop of Chapter VIII of the Narasimham Committee's Second Report in which specific reference was made to the ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 8 provisions relating to mortgages under the Transfer of Property Act.
I13. n an apparent bid to overcome the likely difficulty faced .
by the secured creditor which may include a bank or a financial institution, Parliament incorporated the non obstante clause in Section 13 and gave primacy to the right of secured creditor vis`vis other mortgagees who could exercise rights under Sections 69 or 69A of the Transfer of Property Act. However, this primacy has not been extended to other provisions like Section 38C of the Bombay Act and Section 26B of the Kerala Act by which first charge has been created in favour of the State over the property of the dealer or any person liable to pay the dues of sales tax, etc. Subsection (7) of Section 13 which envisages application of the money received by the secured creditor by adopting any of the measures specified under subsection (4) merely regulates distribution of money received by the secured creditor. It does not create first charge in favour of the secured creditor.
114. By enacting various provisos to subsection (9) of Section 13, the legislature has ensured that priority given to the claim of workers of a company in liquidation under Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 vis`vis the secured creditors like banks is duly respected. This is the reason why first of the five unnumbered provisos to Section 13(9) lays down that in the case of a company in liquidation, the amount realised from the sale of secured assets shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956.::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 9
This and other provisos do not create first charge in favour of the worker of a company in liquidation for the first time but merely recognise the existing priority of their claim .
under the Companies Act. It is interesting to note that the provisos to sub section (9) of Section 13 do not deal with the companies which fall in the category of borrower but which are not in liquidation or are not being wound up.
115. It is thus clear that provisos referred to above are only part of the distribution mechanism evolved by the legislature and are intended to protect and preserve the right of the workers of a company in liquidation whose assets are subjected to the provisions of the Securitisation Act and are disposed of by the secured creditor in accordance with Section 13 thereof."
(emphasis supplied) 14 The Hon'ble Supreme Court then referred to its earlier judgments in Builders Supply Corporation v. Union of India (supra), State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. National Iron and Steel Rolling Corporation (supra), Dena Bank v.
Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. (supra), State of M.P. v.
State Bank of Indore (supra), Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank (2000) 4 SCC 406, the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Recovery Officer and Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner v. Kerala Financial Corporation (supra) and observed as under:
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 10"126. While enacting the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act, Parliament was aware of the law laid down by this Court wherein priority of the State dues was recognised. If .
Parliament intended to create first charge in favour of banks, financial institutions or other secured creditors on the property of the borrower, then it would have incorporated a provision like Section 529A of the Companies Act or Section 11(2) of the EPF Act and ensured that notwithstanding series of judicial pronouncements, dues of banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors should have priority over the State's statutory first charge in the matter of recovery of the dues of sales tax, etc. However, the fact of the matter is that no such provision has been incorporated in either of these enactments despite conferment of extraordinary power upon the secured creditors to take possession and dispose of the secured assets without the intervention of the court or Tribunal. The reason for this omission appears to be that the new legal regime envisages transfer of secured assets to private companies.
127. The definition of "secured creditor" includes securitisation/ reconstruction company and any other trustee holding securities on behalf of bank/financial institution. The definition of "securitisation company" and "reconstruction company" in Sections 2(1)(za) and (v) shows that these companies may be private companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having a certificate of registration from Reserve Bank under Section 3 of the Securitisation Act. Evidently, Parliament did not intend to give priority to the dues of private creditors over sovereign debt of the State.::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 11
128. If the provisions of the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act are interpreted keeping in view the background and context in which these legislations were enacted and the .
purpose sought to be achieved by their enactment, it becomes clear that the two legislations, are intended to create a new dispensation for expeditious recovery of dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors and adjudication of the grievance made by any aggrieved person qua the procedure adopted by the banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors, but the provisions contained therein cannot be read as creating first charge in favour of banks, etc.
129. If Parliament intended to give priority to the dues of banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors over the first charge created under State legislations then provisions similar to those contained in Section 14A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 11(2) of the EPF Act, Section 74(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, Section 25(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Section 30 of the Gift Tax Act, and Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 would have been incorporated in the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act.
130. Undisputedly, the two enactments do not contain provision similar to the Workmen's Compensation Act, etc. In the absence of any specific provision to that effect, it is not possible to read any conflict or inconsistency or overlapping between the provisions of the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act on the one hand and Section 38C of the Bombay Act and Section 26B of the Kerala Act on the other and the non ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 12 obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act cannot be invoked for declaring that the first charge created under the State .
legislation will not operate qua or affect the proceedings initiated by banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors for recovery of their dues or enforcement of security interest, as the case may be.
131. The Court could have given effect to the non obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act vis`vis Section 38C of the Bombay Act and Section 26B of the Kerala Act and similar other State legislations only if there was a specific provision in the two enactments creating first charge in favour of the banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors but as Parliament has not made any such provision in either of the enactments, the first charge created by the State legislations on the property of the dealer or any other person, liable to pay sales tax, etc., cannot be destroyed by implication or inference, notwithstanding the fact that banks, etc. fall in the category of secured creditors."
(emphasis supplied) 15 Thus, what can be taken to be more than settled is that Section 16(b) of the Act creates a statutory first charge that prevails over any charge that may be in existence. Therefore, the charge thereby created in favour of the State in respect of the sales tax dues of the petitionerSociety prevailed over the charge created ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 13 in favour of the KCC Bank in respect of the loan taken by the petitionerSociety.
.
16 In order to be fair to the petitionerSociety, strong reliance has been placed by their learned counsel to the instructions issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh on 4/5.12.1997, which provide for priorities of claim in case where properties of the Cooperative Societies are put to sale and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:
"1. First Priority:
1) remuneration of the liquidation, if any [(see Rule 108(7)]
2) pay or remuneration of the staff/employees or ex employees of the society [(rule 108(7)]
a) salary
b) bonus, if any
c) EPF, CPF, etc.
d) T.A.D.A. etc.
3) audit fee payable to the Govt. (rule 111).
4) costs of all types (rule 111)
a) legal fee
b) stationary
c) rent ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 14
d) electricity/water bills
e) other costs of liquidation viz. money paid for publication of notices, summons, postages etc. .
5) Charges and expenses.
a) income taxation
b) sales tax, passenger tax, goods tax, etc.
c) other charges or miscellaneous expenses.
II. Second priority:
1) Govt. loan under State and Central sector.
2) interest on Govt. loan.
3) dues of any other local authority.
III. Third Priority Secured loans (based on charge on assets of the society)
1) 1st charge
2) second charge
3) any subsequent charge IV Fourth Priority Unsecured debt and other liabilities (prorata refund) A liquidator is, however, at liberty to employees or utilize that realized amount in such proportion and in such way to pay off the liabilities of first priority as is reasonable and justifiable. It is,however, clarified that the liabilities other than the first priority shall only be paid in case all the claims of the first priority have been paid in full. The surplus is any, left with the liquidator may thereafter be utilized for ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 15 paying other liabilities under second priority and once these are cleared, then of the third priority and so on.
After all the liabilities, other than the owned capital, as they .
stood on the date of order of liquidation are paid off, the assets, if any, left with the liquidator may be employed in accordance with the provisions of subrule (2) or rule 111 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Rule, 1971 as under:
i) proportional refund to members of any contributions realized from than in addition to their own personal debts.
ii) prorata refund share capital and
iii) prorata payment of dividend on the shapes at the rat and in the manner fixed in rule 111.
In any other case, if the assets of cooperative society with limited liability are inadequate to meet the remaining liabilities even after having issued the contribution order, the liquidator in that event, shall after realizing all the assets and bringing asset portion of the balance sheet to proceed to submit his final report to the registrar. The final report as submitted by the liquidator shall, inter alia, contain the details of remaining liabilities and reasons for nonpayment thereof, the Registrar, on receipt of the final report of the liquidator under Section 83(2) shall pass a reasoned and detailed order of cancellation of registration of the society."
17 Admittedly, instructions as quoted above, are non statutory and will have to give way to the statutory provisions as contained in Section 16(b) of the Act.
18 Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Three Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bombay Stock Exchange vs. V.S. ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 16 Kandalgaonkar and others, (2015) 2 SCC 1 to contend that since the KCC Bank is a secured creditor, the government debts .
have precedence only over unsecured creditors. Strong reliance is placed on the observations as contained in para 26, which reads as under: "It is settled law that Government debts have precedence only over unsecured creditors. This was held in Dena Bank v. Bhikabhai Prabhudas Parekh Co., 2000 (5) SCC 694 as follows: r "10. However, the Crown's preferential right to recovery of debts over other creditors is confined to ordinary or unsecured creditors. The common law of England or the principles of equity and good conscience (as applicable to India) do not accord the Crown a preferential right for recovery of its debts over a mortgagee or pledgee of goods or a secured creditor. It is only in cases where the Crown's right and that of the subject meet at one and the same time that the Crown is in general preferred. Where the right of the subject is complete and perfect before that of the King commences, the rule does not apply, for there is no point of time at which the two rights are at conflict, nor can there be a question which of the two ought to prevail in a case where one, that of the subject, has prevailed already. In Giles v.Grover [(1832) 131 ER 563 : 9 Bing 128] it has been held that the Crown has no precedence over a pledgee of goods. In Bank of Bihar v. State of Bihar [(1972) 3 SCC 196 : AIR 1971 SC 1210] the principle has been recognised ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 17 by this Court holding that the rights of the pawnee who has parted with money in favour of the pawnor on the security of the goods cannot be extinguished even by lawful seizure of .
goods by making money available to other creditors of the pawnor without the claim of the pawnee being first fully satisfied. Rashbehary Ghose states in Law of Mortgage (TLL, 7th Edn., p. 386) -- "It seems a government debt in India is not entitled to precedence over a prior secured debt."
19 However, these observations are being read out of contest by the learned counsel for the petitioner because in Dena Banks' case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had itself formulated two questions namely:
1. Whether the recovery of sales tax dues (amounting to crown debt) shall have precedence over the right of the Bank to proceed against the property of the borrowers mortgaged in favour of the Bank?
2. Whether property belonging to the partners can be proceeded against for recovery of dues on account of salestax assessed against the partnership firm under the provisions of the Kartanaka Sales Tax Act, 1957?
20 It was while answering first question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "7. What is common law doctrine of priority or precedence of crown debts? Halsbury, dealing with general rights of the ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 18 crown in relation to property, states where the Crowns right and that of a subject meet at one and the same time, that of the Crown is in general preferred, the rule being detur .
digniori (Laws of England, Fourth Edition Vol.8 para 1076 at page 666). Herbert Brown states:
Quando jus domini regis et subditi concurrunt jus regis praeferri debet Where the title of the king and the title of a subject concur, the kings title must be preferred. In this case detur digniori is the rulewhere the titles of the king and of a subject concur, the king takes the whole.where the kings title and that of a subject concur, or are in conflict, the kings title is to be preferred (Legal Maxims 10th edition, pp.3536).
This common law doctrine of priority of States debts has been recognised by the High Courts of India as applicable in British India before 1950 and hence the doctrine has been treated as law in force within the meaning of Article 372 (1) of Constituiton. An illuminating discussion of the subject made by Chagla C.J. is to be found in Bank of India Vs. John Bowman AIR 1955 Bombay 305. We may also refer to Full Bench decision of Madras High Court in Manickam Chettiar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Madura AIR 1938 Mad. 360 as also to two Judicial Commissioners Court decisions in Peoples Bank of Northern India Ltd. Vs. Secretary of State for India AIR 1935 Sind 232 and Vassanbai Topandas Vs. Radhabai Tirathdas and ors. AIR 1933 Sind 368. Without multiplying the authorities we would straightaway come to the Constitution Bench decision in M/s Builders Supply Corporation Vs. Union of India AIR 1965 SC 1061.::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 19
8. The principle of priority of Government debts is founded on the rule of necessity and of public policy. The basic justification for the claim for priority of state debts rests on .
the well recognised principle that the State is entitled to raise money by taxation because unless adequate revenue is received by the State, it would not be able to function as a sovereign government at all. It is essential that as a sovereign, the State should be able to discharge its primary governmental functions and in order to be able to discharge such functions efficiently, it must be in possession of necessary funds and this consideration emphasises the necessity and the wisdom of conceding to the State, the right to claim priority in respect of its tax dues. (See M/s. Builders Supply Corporation, Supra). In the same case the Constitution Bench has noticed a consensus of judicial opinion that the arrears of tax due to the State can claim priority over private debts and that this rule of common law amounts to law in force in the territory of British India at the relevant time within the meaning of article 372 (1) of the Constitution of India and therefore continues to be in force thereafter. On the very principle on which the rule is founded, the priority would be available only to such debts as are incurred by the subjects of the Crown by reference to the States sovereign power of compulsory exaction and would not extend to charges for commercial services or obligation incurred by the subjects to the State pursuant to commercial transactions. Having reviewed the available judicial pronouncements Their Lordships have summed up the law as under : ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 20
1. There is a consensus of judicial opinion that the arrears of tax due to the State can claim priority over private debts.
2. The common law doctrine about priority of crown debts .
which was recognised by Indian High Courts prior to 1950 constitutes law in force within the meaning of Article 372 (1) and continues to be in force.
3. The basic justification for the claim for priority of State debts is the rule of necessity and the wisdom of conceding to the State the right to claim priority in respect of its tax dues.
4. The doctrine may not apply in respect of debts due to the State if they are contracted by citizens in relation to commercial activities which may be undertaken by the State for achieving socioeconomic good. In other words, where welfare State enters into commercial fields which cannot be regarded as an essential and integral part of the basic government functions of the State and seeks to recover debts from its debtors arising out of such commercial activities the applicability of the doctrine of priority shall be open for consideration.
9. The Constitution Bench decision has been followed by three judges Bench in Collector of Aurangabad Vs. Central Bank of India AIR 1967 SC 1831."
21 After taking into consideration the entire law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court finally answered the two questions by concluding that (i) the State has a preferential right to recover its ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP 21 dues over the rights of the Bank and (ii) the property of the partners is also liable to be proceeded against.
.
22 Since respondent No.4 by virtue of Section 16(b) of the Act has a statutory first charge in its favour, which prevails over any charge that may be in existence, therefore, at the first instance is entitled to the sale proceeds realized out of the sale amounting to Rs.31,25,000/ lying deposited in the registry of this Court and only if further residuary amount is still left undisbursed, only then it would be respondentKCC Bank, which shall be entitled to such residuary amount.
23 The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
19.6.2019 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(pankaj) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:37:24 :::HCHP