Case: SWARAJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD

3. Several appeals were taken up together for hearing by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.The brief facts necessary to decide the present appeals are as follows:The respondent, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, advanced various loans to the companies in question. The outstanding amount against these companies as on date, together with interest, is stated to be in the region of INR 48 crores. The respondent approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai by filing three separate original applications to recover the debt owed to them. The Debts Recovery Tribunal delivered three separate judgments on 16.01.2015 allowing the applications filed by the respondent bank. Apparently, the said orders are final as no appeals have been preferred to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [Mumbai. Recovery certificates dated 12.08.2015 for the said amounts were then issued by the Recovery Officer under Section 19(19) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [We have been informed that various attempts were made to auction the properties that were security for the loans granted, but each of these attempts has yielded no results.In the meanwhile, the respondent issued statutory notices dated 15.04.2015 under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. As no payments were forthcoming, a company petition was filed before the Bombay High Court on 03.07.2015. By an order dated 26.07.2017, the said petition was admitted as the companies in question were said to be commercially insolvent. In the appeals that were filed to the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, the main point argued was that once a secured creditor has obtained an order from the DRT, and a recovery certificate has been issued thereupon, such secured creditor cannot file a winding up petition as the Recovery of Debts Act is a special Act which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the DRT. Also, a secured creditor can file a winding up petition only on giving up its security, which has not been done in the present case. These contentions did not find favour with the Division Bench who then dismissed the appeals in question.

Court's reasoning:
13. It is true that this Court has stated that a winding up petition is a form of equitable execution of a debt, but this is qualified by stating that a winding up order is not a normal alternative to the ordinary procedure for realization of debts due to a creditor. We are of the view that both the judgments contained in Amalgamated Commercial Traders (supra) as well as in Harinagar Sugar Mills (supra), recognize the fact that a winding up proceeding is not a proceeding that can be referred to as a proceeding for realization of debts and would, therefore, not be covered by the language of Section 17 read with Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Act. When it comes to a winding up proceeding under the Companies Act, 1956, since such a proceeding is notdue to banks, the bar contained in Section 18 read with Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts Act would not apply to winding up proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956.14. In point of fact, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Viral Filaments Ltd. v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2001) 3 Mah LJ 552 reached this very conclusion after closely examining the judgment in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank (supra) of this Court. We approve of the reasoning contained in the aforesaid Bombay High Courta matter of fact, sub-paragraphs (i) and (iv) of paragraph 18 would show that proceedings before the DRT, and winding up proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956, can carry on in parallel streams. That is why paragraph 18(i) states that a Debts Recovery Tribunal, acting under the Recovery of Debts Act, would be entitled to order sale, and sell the properties of the debtor, even of a company in liquidation, but only after giving notice to the Official Liquidator, or to the Liquidator appointed by the Company Court, and after hearing him.The second important point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that a conjoint reading of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, would make it clear that the secured creditor must, at the time of filing the petition for winding up, state that it has given up his security, or else, such winding up petition would not be maintainable.We now come to the argument based on Section 434(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. It is obvious that Section 434(1)(b) is attracted only if execution or other process is issued in respect of an order of a Tribunal in favour of a creditor of the company is returned unsatisfied in whole or in part. This is only one of three instances in which a company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts. If the fact situation fits sub-clause (b) of Section 434(1), then a company may be said to be deemed to be unable to pay its debts. However, this does not mean that each one of the sub-clauses of Section 434(1) are mutually exclusive in the sense that once Section 434(1)(b) applies, Section 434(1)(a) ceases to be applicable. Also, on the facts of this case, we may state that the company petition was filed only on 03.07.2015, pursuant to a notice under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 dated 15.04.2015. This petition was filed under Section 433(e) read with Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. At the stage at which the petition was filed, it could not possibly have been filed under Section 434(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, as execution or other process in the form of a recovery certificate had not been issued by the Recovery Officer till 12.08.2015, i.e., till after the company petition was filed.