Delhi High Court
Alcatel India vs Koshika Telecom on 9 February, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 29.1.2009
Date of Order: 9th February, 2009
EAs No. 624-625/2007 in Ex. P. No. 270/2003
% 09.02.2009
Alcatel India ... Decree Holder
Through: Mr. Dharmendra Rautray and
Ms. Anuradha Sharma, Advocates
Versus
Koshika Telecom ... Judgment Debtor
Through: Mr. U.C. Mittal and Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha,
Advocates for Indian Bank.
Mr. Harish Malhtora, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vinod Kumar Shukla, Advocates
for Mr. Vinay Rai, Ex. Director with Mr. Vinay Rai in Ex. Pet. 17/2003.
Mr. Harish Malhtora, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vinod Kumar Shukla, Advocates
for Mr. Varun Rai, Ex. Director with Mr. Varun Rai in Ex. Pet. 270/2003.
Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Advocate for JD-2 (Usha India Limited) in Ex.P.270/03
Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Advocate for JD-2 (Usha India Limited) in Ex.P.17/03
Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate for Usha Housing Development Co. Ltd and
Dr. M.C. Gupta, Ex-Director for JD No.2.
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Advocate for Noticee No.2 to 6.
Mr.Mohit Chaudhary with Mr. Pradeep Chandel, Advocate for PNB
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
EA No. 624/2007 (exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
EA No. 625/2007
This application has been made under Section 151 CPC by the
applicant IFCI Limited for impleadment in this Execution Petition as a
necessary party. Although the applicant has nothing to do with the decree
passed by this Court but the applicant is a secured creditor of the Judgment
Debtor and the amount recoverable by the applicant runs in several crores.
The property of Judgment Debtor was sold in auction under SARFAESI Act by
Punjab National Bank and Indian Bank together and after they had
appropriated their dues an excess amount of Rs.8.11 crore was left. This
Court vide order dated 4.4.2007 attached this excess amount lying with
Indian Bank and asked the Indian Bank to keep this amount with itself in an
interest bearing account during pendency of this Execution. The applicant
has stated that Punjab National Bank and Indian Bank could not have sold the
property of Judgment Debtor without the consent of secured creditor i.e.
applicant, in any case, the excess amount lying with the Indian Bank has to
be appropriated against the dues of the applicant since applicant was a
secured creditor. It is stated that the applicant has already moved Debt
Recovery Tribunal and during pendency of the proceedings before Debt
Recovery Tribunal, it was learnt that the present Execution Petition was
pending in which the excess amount has been attached. It is argued that
since the applicant's interests were involved in the excess amount, the
applicant was a necessary party and should be impleaded as a party. The
other prayer made is that the excess amount lying with the Indian Bank be
released in favour of the applicant and the applicant shall keep the amount in
its own account bearing interest till the challenge to the auction sale made by
the Judgment Debtor before Debt Recovery Tribunal is not finally disposed of.
2. Since the applicant is one of the creditors of the Judgment
Debtor and interest of the applicant is deeply involved in the properties of JD,
which are sought to be attached for recovery of dues of the present Decree
Holder, I consider the applicant is a necessary party and the application is
allowed to that extent. However, as far as other relief is concerned, I
consider that applicant can take steps before appropriate forum for
attachment of the excess amount kept with the Indian Bank. The amount
ordered to be kept with the Indian Bank shall be kept by the Indian Bank and
shall not be disbursed by the Indian Bank without the express order of this
Court or any other competent Court/Tribunal. The application is disposed of
in above terms.
Ex. P. No. 270/03
List on 27th April, 2009.
February 09, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
