The respondent bank issued a legal notice to the petitioner seeking to enforce the securities issued in favour of the bank. The respondent-bank filed Recovery Application before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur for the recovery and decree to the tune of Rs.10,88,60,173.53 ps. on the date of the institution of the proceedings. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur granted the first relief in favour of the bank restraining the petitioner company from selling, transferring, alienating and disposing of its movable and immovable properties and further issued a notice to the company as to why the receiver be not appointed to take actual and physical possession of movable and immovable properties etc. returnable on 24.7.2000. Thereafter the hearing was fixed on 24.7.2000, 1.8.2000, 8.8.2000 and 9.8.2000. It was stated by the respondent bank that the petitioner sought an adjournment for negotiations and settlement with the bank and the matter was adjourned to 24.8.2000. On 22.8.2000, the petitioner-company filed Civil Suit NO. 436 of 2000 alongwith Notice of Motion for the purpose of stalling pending proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. On the same day, the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad issued an urgent notice returnable on 30th August, 2000. This Revision Application has been preferred against issuance of the notice and not granting interim relief in terms of the relief claimed in the application. This Court vide order dated 24th August, 2000 issued notice returnable within three weeks and also granted interim relief in terms of para14(C) of the Revision Application till the next date of listing.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Labour and Employment Department has issued a notification dated 22.10.99 whereby the petitioner company has been declared to be an industrial undertaking to be conducted to serve as a measure of preventing unemployment with effect from 22.10.99 and the said undertaking shall accordingly deemed to be a relief undertaking for the purpose of the said Act for a period of twelve mnths from 22.10.99 and the undertaking shall accordingly deemed to be a relief undertaking for the purpose of the said Act. The Government of Gujarat has direct ed thagp3 t in relation to the said undertaking all rights, privileges, obligations, liabilities (other than those liabilities etc. towards its employees) occurred or incurred before the said undertaking is declared as a relief undertaking and any remedy for the enforcement thereof shall suspended and all proceedings relating thereto pending before any court, Tribunal officer or Authority shall be stayed during the period for which the said undertaking shall continue to be a relief undertaking namely, for the period of twelve months commencing from 22.10.1999.
It is also pointed out that the adjudication of the liability and recovery of the amount by execution of the certificate are respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the Recovery Officer and no other court or authority much less Civil Court or Company Court can go into the said question releting to the liability and recovery except as provided in said point no.1 provided in the Act as held in the case of Allahabad Bank vs. Canara Bank and another reported in 2000(4) SCC, 406.
3.Admittedly, the matter is pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. The petitioner apprehends that the respondent bank may take possession through its officers, agents at any time even without notice to the borrower pursuant to clause (12) of hypothecation agreement. As the matter is already pending before the tribunal, the bank should not take any action.
4.I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned advocate for the parties. The petitioner company apprehends that the action may be taken pursuant to clause (12) of the hypothecation agreement wherein the bank and their officers and agents shall be entitled at any time and without notice to the borrowr to enter and remain at any place where the hypthecated goods shall be and to take possession of, recover and receive the same and/or appoint any officer or officers of the Bank as receiver or receivers. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties are at liberty to move their claims before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur where proceedings are pending. If both the parties approach the said Tribunal and the Tribunal will decide the matter in accordance with law. The rspondent bank is directed not to take any action pursuant to clause (12) of the hypothecation agreement till the final decision by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. This Revision Application is disposed of finally with the aforesaid direction. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the petitioner company makes a statement that in view of this order, the petitioner will withdraw the suit pending in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad without prejudice to their rights and contentions to be raised before appropriate authority.
(Kundan Singh,J) ***darji