Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9.1. I may only note that it is emphasised by Mr.Bhaskar that a similar stand was taken by the petitioner bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, as well. For the sake of convenience, the relevant extract of the order dated 17.06.2014, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal vacating the interim order is set forth below only to demonstrate that the stand of the respondent company as against that of the petitioner has found resonance with, at least, one forum, for the moment :

17. Having considered the submissions made by the Ld.Sr. Counsel Mr.P.S.Raman for the petitioner/Defendant Company, Mr.Shankar Narayanan for the 3rd Respondent and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan for the Respondent/Applicant Bank, this Tribunal is of the view that as on the date of passing interim directions on 21.06.2013 directing the Respondents to maintain status quo till the repayment of the entire OA claim as directed therein, no doubt on the said date there was no such CDR Package sanctioned by the CDR (EG). Mr.L.Chandrasekar, Executive Vice President of Petitioner/Defendant Company is aware of a reference to CDR but suppressed the same before this Tribunal. The Applicant Bank is also a part of the CDR system and also attending various meetings of joint lenders from time to time. This Tribunal also recorded that objections raised by the Applicant Bank in such meeting as per the said OA. The applicant has also informed this Tribunal that when the counter was filed in IA 114 and 115 of 2013 the Executive Vice President of the Defendant Company was award that the Company has approached the State Bank of India for a reference to the CDR system, but the counter was silent in that aspect. The petitioner is also aware that the 3rd respondent has taken away right of the Applicant Bank in respect of unpaid vendor's right when the bill discount facility was allowed and discounted bills were sent to the 3rd respondent instead of making payment to the Applicant Bank for reasons not known to this Tribunal, the same was allowed to be paid to the Defendant Company which was used to clear the FCCB liabilities as admitted by the Defendant Company. The Tribunal is also aware that the Applicant Bank has not taken measures to declare the Defendant Company as willful defaulter so that the same will make the company ineligible for any reference under the CDR system. Even though they are engaged in correspondences with the Defendant Company since the system under CDR Scheme, where ICA is signed by the Applicant Bank along with the CDR group members as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the applicant is entitled to raise issues in respect of disagreement and the package under Section 11 of ICA and at the same time the Applicant Bank is also bound by the decision of the super majority as per Section 1.1(aa), the final approval given by the CDR (EG) is well within the knowledge of the Applicant Bank, but during the course of arguments it was not brought to the knowledge of this Tribunal that the Applicant Bank has preferred any Appeal as per Section 11 of the ICA. As substantial amount out of sale consideration is going to be utilized by the lenders mechanism to pay the members the pre-decided amount to various lenders as per the decision of the CDR mechanism, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to question the same. At the same time, the Tribunal is also concurs with the view of Ld.Sr.Counsel Mr.Shankar Narayanan in his repeated submissions informed that the Applicant Bank cannot hold the entire scheme to ransom so as to stall the benefit available to all the CDR secured lender and CDR unsecured lenders including the non CDR lenders and cannot be ignored.