1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.922 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.5237 OF 1998 ICICI Bank Ltd. .. Plaintiff Versus Official Liquidator for DSJ Finance Corporation Ltd. .. Defendants Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Birendra Saraf with Sachin Chandarana with Hiten Dhedia i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for plaintiff Ms.Usha Rahi for O.L. Mr.V.G.Raut representative of Court Receiver. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23rd March 2009. P.C. . This is a motion by the plaintiff bank seeking withdrawal of the amounts which are deposited with the Court Receiver. 2. Mr.Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for plaintiffs states that the amount 2 lying with the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay are the Net sale proceeds after sale of the property of the First Defendant situate at Bangalore. The property is described more particularly at Exh.A-2 to the plaint. 3. Inviting my attention to the orders passed by the learned Company Judge (S.J.Vazifdar, J), including the last order of 6th March 2009, it is contended by Mr.Tulzapurkar that the applicants - plaintiffs are a Financial Institution Fund. They are in fact Trustees of Debenture Trust. The amounts have to be disbursed to the members of Fund. The amounts are lying with the Court Receiver. They may be duly invested by him. After appropriate safeguards for the Dues of workers which is the only liablity, the balance sum can be disbursed to the plaintiffs subject to an undertaking in the terms recorded, in para 22 of the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. 3 4. Notice of this application is duly served on the Receiver and the Official Liquidator. 5. There is no affidavit in reply nor are the contents of the affidavit in support disputed. With the consent of parties, motion is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself. 6. The representative of Court Receiver confirms that a sum of Rs.6,39,60,921.28 is lying with the Court Receiver being the balance from the sale proceeds. The O.L’s. Advocate does not dispute the figure. However, it is stated that workers’ dues are not yet adjudicated and settled. Mr.Tulzapurkar invites my attention to the orders passed by learned Company Judge referring to the report of the Chartered Accountant so also making an approximate provision of Rs.20 to 25 lakhs for Workers’ dues. 4 There is no denial of this fact and all that is stated is that workers dues are still to be determined. 7. In my view, in the light of the safeguards provided taken and conditions imposed, including furnishing of an undertaking of the plaintiffs, the relief claimed in prayer clause (a) of the motion can be granted. 8. In the result, motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) to the extent that the Receiver will permit the plaintiffs to withdraw the sale proceeds after keeping apart Rs.25 lakhs being approximate amount towards workers’ dues. In other words, the F.D. can be broken and such sums after setting apart Rs.25 lakhs can be withdrawn by the plaintiffs, subject to their furnishing undertaking to this Court with advance copy to the Liquidator and Receiver that if this Court or the O.L. calls upon the plaintiffs to 5 bring back the sum, then they will do so and abide by all such orders and directions. Such undertaking be furnished within Ten days from the Receipt of a copy of this order. After the undertaking is submitted in the above terms with copies as directed above, the amount can be withdrawn with accrued interest. Receiver and Official Liquidator to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)