Gujarat High Court
Union vs O on 26 November, 2010
Author: K.A.Puj
Bench: K.A.Puj
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
COMA/122/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 122 of 2010
In
COMPANY
PETITION No. 169 of 2004
=========================================
UNION
BANK OF INDIA
Versus
O
L OF GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD ( IN LIQUIDATION) & 2
=========================================
Appearance
:
MS NALINI S LODHA for
Applicant
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for Respondent No.1
MR MRUGESH
JANI for Respondent No.1
MR BD KARIA for Respondent No.2
MR RM
DESAI for Respondent No.3
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 26/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER BELOW NOTE FOR SPEAKING TO MINUTES
[1] Mr.R. M. Desai, learned appearing counsel for the respondent No.3 in present Company Application has filed note for speaking to minutes. He has pointed out that this Court vide its judgment and order dated 29.09.2010 has held that IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., Union Bank of India and Bank of Baroda all are having pari passu charge on the assets of the Company in Liquidation and amount is distributed accordingly. He has further submitted that an error has crept in the judgment and order since Liquidator is directed to distribute as per Chartered Accountant Report which has provided that amount is distributed as under and not on pari passu basis :
Sr.No. Particulars Security Amount (Rs.)
1.
Bank of Baroda First Charge 2,67,74,438/-
2. Union Bank of India First Charge 1,30,51,515/-
3. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd.
Second Charge 3,49,02,047/-
4. Workers 52,72,000/-
He has further submitted that if amount is distributed between IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., Union Bank of India and bank of Baroda on pari passu basis distribution will be as under :
Sr.No. Particulars Security Amount (Rs.)
1.
Bank of Baroda Second Charge 1,89,10,482/-
2. Union Bank of India Second Charge 92,18,137/-
3. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd.
Second Charge 4,65,99,381/-
4. Workers 52,72,000/-
He has, therefore, submitted that the above error is required to be corrected accordingly.
[2] Mr.B. D. Karia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no mistake committed by the Court in its judgment and order dated 29.09.2010. The Court has initially referred to the submissions made by the parties. The Court has also observed in the order that as per the Debt Recovery Tribunal's order who is the first charge holder and who is the second charge holder, the Court has mentioned in Scheduled I and II. It is further submitted that the Court has, thereafter, referred to the Debenture Trust Deed dated 18.03.1994 executed by the Company in favour of respondent No.3 and after considering all these submissions and documents, the Court has ultimately directed that the amount of Rs.8 Crores will be disbursed amongst the secured creditors and workers as under.
Sr.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1. Bank of Baroda 2,67,74,438/-
2. Union Bank of India 1,30,51,515/-
3. IDBI 3,49,02,047/-
4. Workers 52,72,000/-
Total 8,00,00,000/-
He has, therefore, submitted that if the respondent No.3 has any grievance against the above order of the disbursement, the remedy lies somewhere else. It cannot be said to be a mistake which is required to be corrected by way of speaking to minutes.
[3] Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels and the order of this Court passed on 29.09.2010, the Court is of the view that the issue raised by Mr.R. M. Desai in his note for speaking to minutes does not call for any interference. If the respondent No.3 is aggrieved, it shall have to file O.J. Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court.
[4] It goes without saying that as per the order of this Court dated 29.09.2010, if any amount is accepted by the respondent No.3 it would not be treated as the order having been accepted by the respondent No.3 [5] In this view of the matter, this note for speaking to minutes is accordingly disposed of and the order is not required to be corrected as contended by Mr.R. M. Desai.
[ K. A. PUJ, J. ] vijay Top