1. In response to the previous order dated 24.1.2012 Chartered Accountant Mr. Hemant Kashipareskh has filed affidavit dated 27.1.2012.
Mr.
Tanvish Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the said chartered accountant has submitted that the chartered accountant has tendered his clarification and has also mentioned the factual position from his point and his side in the said affidavit dated 27.1.2012. Mr. Tanvish Bhatt, learned advocate also submitted that as per the details mentioned by the chartered accountant in his said affidavit dated 27.1.2012, the allegations made by the office of the applicant bank are true and the chartered accountant had neither received any intimation from the officer of the applicant bank nor the chartered accountant had conveyed to any officer anything such as the officer of the applicant bank has alleged.
2. As against the said affidavit by the chartered accountant Hemant Kashipareskh and the submissions made by Mr. Tanvish Bhatt, learned advocate for the chartered accountant, Mr. Bhagat, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that there are several lacuna, discrepancies and anomaly in the affidavit made by the chartered accountant.
3. In view of the allegations made by the officer of the applicant bank which are recorded in this Court's order and subsequent development pursuant to the said order including the affidavit filed by the chartered accountant and the orders passed in that regard from time to time, it has emerged that the concerned parties have made conflicting submissions.
4. In view of the details mentioned by the chartered accountant and the OL in their respective affidavits, the Court today inquired from the learned advocate for the applicant bank as to whether the applicant bank or its concerned officer wants to file any counter affidavit in response to the affidavit filed either by the chartered accountant or by OL, and in reply Mr. Bhagat, learned advocate appearing for the applicant bank has submitted that the bank and / or the concerned officer do not propose to file further affidavit in counter to the affidavit filed by the chartered accountant and / or the OL. He however, as aforesaid submitted that there are several discrepancies, anomaly and contradiction in the affidavit filed by the chartered accountant which need to be taken into account before taking any view or final decision.
5. Under the circumstances, at this stage it appears appropriate to forward the three affidavits viz. the affidavit filed by the concerned officer of the applicant bank, affidavit filed by the chartered accountant and the affidavit filed by OL as well as relevant orders which have been passed from time to time on that count i.e. starting from 15.12.2011 - in particular the orders dated 15.12.2011, 19.12.2011 and 24.1.2012 to the Registrar (Judicial) to examine the matter. If need be or if the applicant bank or any of its officers or chartered accountant or OL make request for hearing then it would be open to the Registrar (Judicial) to take appropriate action including the decision to grant hearing and to submit report including his prima facie views and suggestion which may include the suggestion about further course of action after examining the option of instituting appropriate proceedings including proceedings of Contempt of Court and / or for perjury if found necessary and appropriate.
6. Today, during the hearing of present application Mr. Bhagat, learned advocate has made submission as regards the merits of applicant's claim and for disbursement in favour of the applicant. He has dealt with the second report filed by the chartered accountant and submitted that even in the second report the chartered accountant has accepted the applicant bank's claim and it is found that the applicant bank is a secured creditor and holds first charge in respect of immovable properties in question.
7. During his submission Mr. Bhagat, learned advocate for the applicant also submitted that the applicant bank has already incurred expenses in nature of the liquidation expenses by making payment towards security charges which are to the tune of Rs.9,24,689/- (page 49) however despite repeated reminders and requests the OL has not made payment towards the said expenses.
8. Mr. Yadav, learned advocate for the OL (in absence of Ms. Yajnik, learned advocate for OL) could not explain the delay.
Under the circumstances, by way of interim direction, OL is directed that he shall immediately verify the invoices and other documents submitted by the applicant in support of its claim and after verifying the said claim, make payment, if the documents and other relevant material are found in order, to the applicant bank by way of reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the applicant bank for making payment to the security agency and other related expenses in the sum of Rs.9,24,689/- or the extent which is found undisputed. The payment shall be made within 10 days from today.
9. So far as the claim of the applicant is concerned, as mentioned above Mr. Bhagat, learned advocate for the applicant has made submission on the basis of the second report submitted by chartered accountant. Ms. Lodha, learned advocate has also made submissions in counter to the submissions made by Mr. Bhagat. However, on behalf of the OL any submission either with regard to the report filed by OL or chartered accountant's report, have not been made since Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned advocate who has been attending present application on behalf of the OL is not available and has filed leave note. Therefore, for allowing opportunity to the learned advocate for OL to make submissions, present proceedings are adjourned to 5.3.2012.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh*