High Court Madras High Court

Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd vs Icici Bank Limited on 12 April, 2005

Madras High Court
Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd vs Icici Bank Limited on 12 April, 2005
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           

Dated: 12/04/2005 

Coram 

THE HON'BLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE            
and 
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA         


Writ Appeal No.734  of 2005


Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd.,
an incorporated Company under the 
provisions of Companies Act I of 1956
having its registered office at
No.24/1551, Indira Gandhi Road,
Mahavir House, Cochin-682 003.                    .. Appellant


-Vs-

1. ICICI Bank Limited,
   a company incorporated under the
   Companies Act I 1956 and a
   Scheduled Bank within the meaning 
   of Banking Regulation Act, 1949
   having one of its Branch at
   No.215, Free Press Journal House,
   Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. 

2. Madras Petrochem Limited, 
    a company incorporated under the
   Companies Act I 1956, having its
   Registered Office at 1st floor,
   Nariman Bhavan, Plot No.227,
   Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. 

3. The Presiding Officer,
   Debt Recovery Tribunal-I,
   Spencers Towers, VI floor,
   No.770-A, Mount Road, 
   Chennai-600 002.                                      .. Respondents


        Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters  Patent  against  the
order passed in W.P.No.6462 of 2005 dated 11.3.2005. 


!For appellant :  Mr.P.Sukumar

^For respondent No.1/ :  Mr.Jayesh Dolia for
                caveator M/s.Aiyar & Dolia


:JUDGMENT   

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
The Hon’ble Chief Justice.)

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
of the learned single Judge dated 11.3.2005.

2. The petitioner/appellant had challenged the order of the
third respondent – Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai dated 19.1.2005. In our
opinion, the petitioner/appellant has a right of appeal under section 18 of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Hence we
dismiss the writ petition as well as the writ appeal on the ground of
alternative remedy under section 18 of the Act.

3. It is well settled that every appellate authority has
inherent power to grant an interim order as held by the Supreme Court in
Income Tax Officer v. Mohd. Kunhi, AIR 1969 SC 430. Hence if the writ
petitioner/appellant is so advised, he may move an application for interim
orders along with the appeal under section 18 of the Act. If the appeal is
filed within two weeks from today, the same will be entertained by the
appellate authority without raising any objection as to limitation and shall
be decided on merits as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently
WAMP No.1409 of 2005 is also dismissed.

Index: Yes.

Internet: Yes.

ns.

To
The Presiding Officer,
Debt Recovery Tribunal-I,
Spencers Towers, VI floor,
No.770-A, Mount Road,
Chennai-600 002.