JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This petition is under section 446 (1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Companies Act”), for permission to file a suit against the respondent.
2. The petitioner is a nationalised bank and a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, with its head office at J.C. Road, Bangalore, and its branches all over India. There is a branch of the petitioner-bank at Civil Lines, Bhatinda. Mr. B. Suresh is the authorised principal officer of the petitioner-bank, who has filed the present petition on behalf of the bank.
3. The petitioner-bank at the request of the respondent-company had granted the following credit facility to the respondent-company :
“(i) Open cash credit limit Rs. 30 lakhs;
(ii) S.D.B. limit Rs. 25 lakhs;
(ill) C.D.B. limit Rs. 5 lakhs.”
4. Requisite documents were executed by the respondent-company through its director-general in favour of the petitioner-bank. A company petition was filed against the respondent-company which was allowed and the respondent-company was directed to be wound up by this court.
5. The accounts of the respondent-company with the petitioner-bank had become irregular and they were at default as on January 24, 1997, for a total sum of Rs. 53,47,087.95. This amount became due and payable by the respondent-company to the petitioner-bank. It is alleged by the petitioner bank that their dues are with in limitation and prima facie they have a tenable claim. Annexures P-1 and P-2 have been filed in support thereof to show that the accounts were running even as late as November 28, 1997.
6. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent-company, vide order dated January 9, 1998. An affidavit of service has been filed. The official liquidator, being the liquidator of Punjab Ceramics Limited (in liquidation), has stated that he has no objection if the leave prayed for is granted.
7. Although the official liquidator has no objection, at the same time the court must exercise its discretion for grant of the leave under section 446 (1) of the Companies Act in consonance with the settled principles of law. The claim of the petitioner does not prima facie appear to be barred under any law nor does there appear to be any other reason on record to decline the permission to the petitioner-company as prayed for. The endeavour of the company court would normally be to have the affairs of the company and more particularly the cases by or against the company decided expeditiously and save unnecessary expenses.
8. For the reasons aforestated, this petition is allowed. The petitioner-bank is granted leave under section 446 (1) and (2) of the Companies Act to institute and pursue its claim petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. However, leave granted by this order is subject to the condition that execution proceedings in furtherance of the recovery certificate issued by the Tribunal would not be executed against the assets and properties of the company without leave of this court.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.