Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2016/12/whether-party-can-disobey-void-order.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:00:14+00:00

Document:
Law Web: Whether a party can disobey void order?
Whether a party can disobey void order?
between the parties, and as such, its compliance was mandatory.
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 7490-7491 of 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as, the RDB Act).
proceedings before the DRT, Bangalore.
High Court, was not required for the sale of the assets of Deve Sugars Ltd..
the first instance, was fixed for 1.10.2014.
continuation of the recovery certificate dated 15.5.2002, issued by the DRT).
the Official Liquidator, were overruled by the Recovery Officer.
proceedings, before Debts Recovery Tribunals), on 12.9.2005.
prayed, that the petitioners be relegated to their alternative remedy.
controversy, uninfluenced by the orders passed by the High Court.
Recovery Officer, whereby the sale of the properties of Deve Sugars Ltd.
conducted on 11.8.2005, in favour of Anita International was confirmed.
the aforementioned N. Ponnusamy. All the applications filed in C.A.
the hands of the Recovery Officer, was allowed.
applicants raised a challenge to the order dated 3.3.2009 (passed in C.A.
Petition No.170 of 1995) by filing O.S.A. Nos. 59-63, 76, 77 and 82 of 2009.
the bid, after receiving a singular bid.
the assets of Deve Sugars Ltd.
that the High Court by relying on the judgment in M.V. Janardhan Reddy v.
Court at Madras. Relying on the decision of this Court in the M.V.
Sugars Ltd. by the Recovery Officer on 11.8.2005, was liable to be set aside.
So also, the confirmation of the sale, by the Recovery Officer on 12.9.2015.
and 18 of the Act.
liability of the defendant to the appellant Bank is concerned.
gives overriding effect to the provisions of the RDB Act. …..
realisation of these debts in any other manner.
also within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer.
jurisdiction of the LIC Tribunal …..
of secured creditors covered by Section 529-A(1)(b).
Allahabad Bank is an unsecured creditor.
during or after the conclusion of the proceedings before the DRT, Bangalore.
clause contained in Section 46-B of the SFC Act.
of the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. v.
cannot, therefore, be kept out of the process.
winding up and to sell the properties of the company-in-liquidation.
ordering a sale, as the representative of the creditors in general.
Company Court and after hearing him.
Section 529-A and Section 529 of the Companies Act.
was a company in liquidation.
the court should be obtained before sale is confirmed or finalised.
inventory as and when required.
shall be made available to the Official Liquidator without delay.
Official Liquidator without avoidable delay.
before the properties covered under the mortgage deed are put to sale.
properties movable or immovable, is confirmed or finalised.
the Companies Act and the Rules.
sale shall be required to be confirmed by this court.
after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
not available as far as the SFC Act is concerned.
to be conducted by DRT with the association of the Official Liquidator.
reiterated in Pravin Gada v. Central Bank of India (2013) 2 SCC 101.
reagitated the same by filing a writ petition before the High Court.
is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
by Sadashiv Prasad Sinha on 28-8-2008.
28-8-2008. Thereafter the same was confirmed on 22-9-2008.
Singh did not raise any objections in the said mutation proceedings.
equity was clearly uncalled for.
confirmed), there was no equitable justification to interfere with the same.
issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
have been set right only under Section 18 of the RDB Act.
any sale made within the teeth of an injunction, was liable to be set aside.
passed by the High Court at Madras, ought not to be interfered with.
10.3.2000, and as such, was liable to be set aside.
itself by a company court seized with the winding-up proceeding.
of the same. These follow from sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 446.
company court vide sub-section (1) of Section 446.
been wound up, but is in the process of being wound up.
contested by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
should facilitate, rather than obstruct, the realisation of security.
substantive right of the creditor should be the main consideration.
recovery of debts due to such institutions.
and subject to such terms as the (Tribunal) may impose.
Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth Naduvil, Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v.
legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity [on] its forehead.
Court dealing with the claim or objection and not by a separate suit.
that no condition was imposed.
a sale has been confirmed by the Recovery Officer under the RDB Act.
conducted by the Recovery Officer of DRT.
terms of the proclamation of sale.
representing the respondents, reliance was placed on Jehal Tanti v.
order of injunction was considered in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v.
jurisdiction to the court is directed to be heard with all expedition.
justified in setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
in relation to the matters specified in section 17.
instead of making an application under this Chapter.
pass such orders after recording the reasons therefor.
passed, by making an application to that Tribunal.
at such rates as may be prescribed.
the relief prayed for should not be granted.
both of the original claim and of the set-off.
the nature of a claim for damages or not.
may be fixed by the Tribunal.
make such order as it thinks fit.
the property required to be attached and the estimated value thereof.
provisions of sub-section (13), such attachment shall be void.
properties of the defendant or for the sale thereof.
compromise or satisfaction of the claim.
recovery of the amount of debt specified in the certificate.
Tribunal which has issued it.
abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.
by virtue of any law other than this Act.
animation. The court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute.
consideration if the parties claiming the same are before the court.
Beedi Works v. CIT (2005) 2 SCC 329).
observations in the decision rendered by this Court in Radhy Shyam v.
patent appeal lay against the order of the learned single Judge.
The Statesman. There was no publication in the Times of India.
only two persons namely the previous tenderer and the fresh tenderer.
the High Court deserved to be set aside.
28.9.1999. The State Bank of Mysore filed Company Application Nos.
1251-1253 of 1999, in the then pending Company Petition No.170 of 1995.
recording an endorsement, that leave of the High Court was not necessary.
the High Court of Karnataka, by filing Writ Petition No.37991 of 2004.
to their remedy under the RDB Act, by a common order dated 27.10.2006.
against the same, was also dismissed by the High Court at Madras.
International were accordingly set aside.
should not fall within the consideration of the present determination.
Court, was without the authority of law, the same was accordingly set aside.
impermissible, and therefore, deserve to be set aside.
advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the appellants.
earlier order of a Court was found to be without jurisdiction after six years.
or disregard or even disobey the same. This course can never be permitted.
above, we find no merit in the contention advanced.
find no merit in the instant contention as well.
the High Court at Madras, while granting leave, imposed two conditions.
Bangalore, and further, that it was equally binding on the Recovery Officer.
learned counsel for the appellants.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.