KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. '\. v. MIS ARI HANT THREADS LTD. & ORS.

RDDB Act will prevail over SICA. There is an additional factor also which is of extreme imprniance and supports the view which I am inclined to take. It is sub-section (2) of Section 34. To recall, sub-section (2) of Section 34 of RDDB Act declares H

... " KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. MIS ARIHANT 751 THREADS LTD. & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.] ·'1 ~J that the provisions of this Act (RDDB Act of 1993) are "in addition to and not in derogation of', certain enactments referred to in the said sub-section. SICA has been expressly mentioned in the said sub-section. As already adverted to earlier, RDDB Act, 1993 has been enacted with a view "to provide for the establishment of the Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial -i institutions" (Preamble of the Act). All other laws, therefore, whether general or special, prior or subsequent, must, in my considered view, be interpreted and applied keeping in view the above object of enacting 1993 Act. I have, therefore, no c hesitation in holding that even though both the conflicting statutes, "\ (SICA of 1985 and RDDB Act of 1993) contain non-obstante clause, in case of conflict, RDDB Act, 1993 will prevail over SICA, 1985 so far as recovery of public revenue is concerned. Final Order D i'

69. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the High Court has committed an error of law in invoking and applying provisions of Section 22 of SICA and in dropping proceedings against the Company. The order of the High Court, therefore, deserves to be set aside and I do accordingly. The matter is E remitted to the High Court to decide it afresh on all points including the conduct of the Company after hearing the parties. All contentions of all parties are kept open.

70. Before parting with the matter, I may clarify that any F .... observation on merits which might have been made in this judgment is only for the purpose of deciding the preliminary question as to maintainability of proceedings against the Company since the High Court has allowed the petitions filed by the Company only on that ground. I make it clear that I may G not be understood to have expressed any opinion on other .. -~ issues and as and when the matter will come up before the . High Court, ·the same will be decided on its own merits without being inhibited by such observations.

71. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. H

~ .....- 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. I ~

\r ,.. A ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. I have had the benefit of going through the draft judgment prepared by my learned Brother and while-1 agree with the conclusionarrived at by His Lordship, that the High Court erred in applying the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, B and dropping the proceedings against the Company, with utmost respect I find myself unable to accept the legal reasoning on which His Lordship's conclusion is based. I would like to traverse t- ,_ a different route in arriving at the same conclusion as arrived at by my learned brother. c 2. Since my learned Brother has set out the facts involved . in detail, I shall only highlight some of the facts which compel ) me to pen my views in a separate judgment.

3. The respondent No.1-Company, M/s Arihant Threads Limited, was incorporated as a Joint Venture Company with ~

Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation. In 1992 the 't" said Company was granted lease of Plot No.454 for 99 years by Goindwal Sahib Industrial and Investment Corporation in the Goindwal Sahib Industrial Area. The lease contained a specific provision disentitling the lessee from transferring its interest in the demised property for the first 15 years of the lease without the prior permission of the lessor,. However, it was also provided that the lessee would be entitled to mortgage its leasehold · rights to a Bank, the Punjab Financial Corporation or the Lif? . Insurance Corporation of India as security for development of the demised premises by constructing factory buildings and for purchase of raw-material etc. In view of the said provision, the ~ Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'IDBI'), which was the predecessor of the Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund (hereinafter referred to as 'SASF'), financed the project undertaken by the Company. "-·

4. As it appears from the records, the respondent no.1- ~- .~

Company was unable to repay the loan and IDBI filed Original Application No.1368 cf 2001 in the Debts Recovel"'J Tribunal, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as 'ORT, Chanaig3rh') on H

( KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/S ARIHANT. 753 THREADS LTD. & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] ..i., ... 20.12.2001, for recovery of Rs.25,26,60,836/-, under the A Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RDDB Act'). Despite service of notice of the said proceedings, the respondent No.1 Company remained unrepresented before the ORT and ori

15. 7 .2003 an ex-pa rte final order was passed in favour of IDBI B for recovery of Rs.25,26,60,836/- together with interest at the rate of 7.8% per annum and a Recovery Certificate was also issued against the respondent No.1-Company.

5. In keeping with Section 29 of the RDDB Act; the Recovery Officer issued a composite demand notice to the c respondent No.1-Company on 9.9.2003 under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, demanding payment of Rs. 28,60,87,384/-. A separate direction was given to the Company to appear before the Recovery Officer on. 23.10.2003 for settling terms and conditions relating to the· D proclamation of sale and for disclosure of its movable and immovable assets.

6. A Valuation Report was also obtained from the Local Commissioner, appointed by the Recovery Officer, who in his report indicated that two machines were missing from the E Company's factory. A further Valuation Report was obtained from the North-India Technical Consultancy Association Limited in January 2004, wherein the assets of the Respondent No.1- Company was valued at Rs.17.5 crores on 16.9.2004. The . reserve price of the property was fixed at Rs.12.50 crores by the Recovery Officer and two separate dates were fixed for F

sale of the immovable and movable properties of the Company. The respondent No.1 - Company filed an appeal, being Appeal No.52 of 2004, before the ORT on 18.10.2004 under Section 30 of the RDDB Act questioning the fixation of the reserve price G ~ »-----J by the Recovery Officer at Rs.12.50 crores. The proposed auction sale was, therefore, cancelled till the ORT by its order dated 27.10.2004 allowed the auction sale to proceed but restrained t/le Recovery Officer from confirming the same till. further orders. Consequently, the auction was held and H

754 SUPREME COURT R.EPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A concluded on 30.10.2004 and the appellan.t herein was declared ~ to be the successful bidder. Consequently, as per rules laid down, the appellant deposited 25% of the reserve price immediately. On 11.11.2004, the appellant made an application to the ORT for accepting bank guarantee for the remaining B balance of 75% of the sale price. On the said application being dismissed the appellant-auction purchaser on the same day deposited the balance amount of 75% of the sale price by a bank draft.· it is .only after the sale had been conducted and concluded on 30.10.2004 that an application was made by the c respondent-Company on 15.12.2004 in the pending appeal for setting aside the ex-parte final order passed by the ORT, Chandigarh, on 15.7.2003 and the same was registered as M.A.No.103/2004. The appellant herein filed an application for being added as a party in Appeal No.52 of 2004 and also in M.A. No.103 of 2004 to enable it to oppose the prayer of the D Company for setting aside the final order passed by the ORT, 't Chandigarh, on 15.7.2003. Such prayer for impleadment was allowed by the ORT by its order dated 17.12.2004.

7. At this juncture it may be indicated that on 10.6.2002 M/ E s Roland Exports, which had succeeded to the interests of Goindwal Sahib Industrial Corporation, cancelled the lease of the respondent No.1-Company on account of non-payment of lease dues amounting to Rs.3, 19,94, 149/-. On 8.4.2005 M/s Roland Exports filed a suit for permanent injunction against the F respondent No.1-Company in the Civil Court at Tarantaran, District Amritsar, wherein an order of status-quo with regard to possession was passed. •

8. On 26.7.2005, ORT-I, Delhi, allowed Appeal No.52 of 2004 and set aside the auction sale subject to the Company G fulfilling certc:tin terms and conditions laid oown in the order. One of the conditions imposed by the Tribunal was that the ~- ... - : . Company would have to pay 5% of the amount deposited by the auction purchaser within 10 days as penalty in terms of Rule 60 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961. H Objecting to the said terms and conditions imposed by the

KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. MIS ARI HANT 755 THREADS LTD. & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] ,, j ORT the Company filed an appeal with DRAT, Delhi, being A Appeal No.167 of 2005. The appellant herein also filed an appeal against the setting aside of the auction sale. The DRAT stayed the operation of the order dated 26. 7 .2005 by which the DRT-1, Delhi, had allowed Appeal No.52 of 2004 and had set aside the auction sale. The DRAT also directed refund of the B sale amount to the appellant.

9. While the matter was pending before the DRAT, the respondent-Company filed a Reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR'), on 21.12.2005 under the provisions of the Sick c Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the same was registered as BIFR Case No.4 of 2006.

10. On 10:2.2006 the DRAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Company and allowed the appeal of the appellant and D confirmed the auction sale in favour of the appellant, subject to its depositing the sale price. By a separate order passed on the same day the DRAT ordered the Recovery Officer, Chandigarh, to implement the directions issued by it. However, despite the appellant depositing the full purchase price on the very same day, the sale could not be confirmed as the Presiding E Officer was on leave. The appellant moved the DRAT for appointment of a Recovery Officer for confirmation of the sale. While the said matters were pending, the respondent-Company filed two writ petitions being C.W. Nos.2041 and 2042 of 2006, in the High Court of Delhi·, against the order dated 10.2.2006 F 4i. passed by DRAT dismissing the Company's appeal. The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent- Company and by its order dated 23.2.2006 set aside the order passed by the DRAT on the ground that Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 operated G -..__., as a complete bar for taking recovery proceedings and no order could therefore have been passed by the Tribunal confirming the sale.

11. It is against the said order of the Delhi High Court that H

756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 12 S.C.R.

(.. I': A the Special Leave Petitions ·were filed on 26.3.2006 wherein leave has since been granted.

12. It may be· significant to note at this stage that on 3.4.2006 the BIFR rejected the Reference made by.. the Company and that on 15.9.2006 another Reference was filed B by the respondent-Company which was registered as BIFR Case No.18 of 2006. It is in the said Reference that on ~ 22.2.2007 the BIFR declared the Company to be a "sick company" and the respondent No.5 was appointed as the Operating Agency for preparation of a rehabilitation scheme. c

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court had erred in law in holding that the~ recovery proceedings initiated under the provisions of th_e RDDB Act were barred by Section 22 of the SICA. It was submitted that ·o Section 22 of SICA was not attracted to the proceedings and the High Court should have decided the matter on merits. It was 't· also submitted on behalf of the appellant that Section 34 of the RDDB Act had an overriding effect over the provisions of SICA and that the High Court should have decided the matter on merits on such grounds as well. It was further contended that E the appeal preferred by the respondent-Company under Section 30 of the RDDB Act, against the order of the Recovery Officer fixing the-reserve price at Rs.12.5 crores, wa$ not maintainable and ought not to have been entertained by the DRT-1,Delhi.

F 14. As has been indicated by my learned Brother in his judgment, it had been forcefully contended on behalf of the ...... appellant that when the respondent-Company had invoked the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court should have taken into account the overall conduct of the party as the respondent- G Company had not come to the writ court with clean hands. Not only had it not repaid the loan amount, but it did not appear ~--

before the ORT inspite of service of summons and the ex-pa rte final order was, therefore, rightly passed on the Original Application filed by the IDBI. The respondent- Company also H I.

KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/S ARIHANT 757 THREADS LTD. & ORS. [AlTAMAS KABIR, J.] .... .. filed an appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer before the DRT-1, Delhi, under Section 30 of the RDDB Act, and failed to comply with the directions contained in the interim order under which directions for payment were made, but no payment was made as directed. To make matters worse, the respondent- Company forcibly entered the property in question and dispossessed the Receiver appointed by the Tribunal and removed machinery and other movable properties from the said premises and created an unlawful tenancy in favour of a third party. In such background it was submitted that even if the case was covered under Section 22 of SICA, the High Court, in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction, ought not to have c allowed the writ petition filed by the Company.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-company submitted that the appeal preferred by the Company under Section 30 of the RDDB Act against the order of the Recovery D Officer fixing the reserve price, was maintainable since the same was an order passed by the Recovery Officer under the Act. It was contended that since such a course of action was available to the respondent-Company it was not incumbent upon the Company to deposit the amounts indicated in the order of E the DRT-1, Delhi, while allowing appeal No.52 of 2004 as a pre- condition for setting aside the auction sale. It was contended that the High Court was fully justified in allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondent-Company in keeping with the bar imposed under Section 22 of SICA. F .....

16. As has been pointed out by my learned Brother, the writ petitions filed by the respondent-Company were allowed by the High Court on the sole ground that the recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act were barred under Section 22 of the SICA. Having once com~ to the conclusion that the G

--- proceedings were barred under Section 22 of the SICA, the High Court did not go into any other question with regard to the merits of the matter and set aside the o~der of the DRAT confirming the auction sale on that one ground alone. H

758 SUPREME COURT REPOFns [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A 17. My learned brother has discussed in detail the relevant . ~

provisions of SICA and the RDDB Act and has observed that Section 34 of the RDDB Act is of extreme importance since it allows "overriding effect" to the provisions of the Act over other laws. Inasmuch as my learned Brother's judgment is based on B an interpretation of Section 34 of the RDDB Act in relation to Section 22 of SICA, the same is reproduced hereinbelow to consider the effect thereof : "34. Act to have over-riding effect-(1) Save as other'ilvise provided in sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall c have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument have effect by virtue of any law other than this Act (2) The provisions of this act or the rules made thereunder D shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Industrial 't Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63of1951), the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52of1963), the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 (62 of 1984), the Sick Industrial E Companie (Special Provisions) Act; 1985 and the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989."

18. My learned Brother has relied on the non-obstante provision contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 34 in arriving at a finding that the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, would have an overriding effect {'-- over other enactments. Since the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, also contains a s!mi!ar non- obstante clause in Section 22, His Lordship has considered in detail the effect of the tvvo non-obstante clauses in the two separate enactments governing the same field and has held that since the RDDB Act was a later Act it would prevail over the \~--

SICA which was an earlier Act

19. It is at this point that I am unable to trave! the same path which my learned Brother ha~> chosen to traverse.

KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/S ARIHANT 759

~ .. THREADS LTD. & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

20. The opening words of Sub-section (1) of Section 34 A of the RDDB Act clearly make the provisions thereof subject to ..j the provisions of Sub-section (2) which in unambiguous term f provides that the provisions of the Act or the Rules made -< 1 thereunder would be in addition to and not in derogation of, certain statutes indicated therein, including the Sick Industrial B 11 Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It is, therefore, clear that while the RDDB Act would have an over-riding effect over other enactments, its provisions would only be supplemental to those of the SICA and consequently the provisions of the SICA would prevail over the provisions of the RDDB Act. Accordingly, c if it is held that the situation in this case is covered by the provisions of SICA, then the view taken by the High Court would have to be upheld. If, however, it is found that the provisions of SICA do not apply to the facts of this case, then there can be no doubt that the judgment of the High Court would have to be 0 ~ set aside.

21. During the course of arguments, counsel for the parties did make submissions with regard to the merits of the matter, which may have to be considered in the light of the view which I am inclined to take in the matter. Furthermore, if it is found that the provisions of SICA, and consequently Section 22 thereof, are not attracted to the facts of this case, the discussion with regard to the RDDB Act being a later Act having an overriding effect over the SICA becomes redundant for the purposes of deciding this appeal. For the aforesaid purpose it would be ... necessary to consider a few dates which have been mentioned F

herein before .

. 22. The first date which is relevant for our purpose is 15.7.2003 when the ex-parte final order was passed· by the ORT, Chandigarh, for recovery of the ·sum claimed by IDBI, G --· along with interest@ 7.8% per annum, and a Recovery Officer was appointed.

23. The second relevant date is 9.9.2003 when the .Recovery Officer issued a demand notice under Rule 2 of the H

760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the respondent-Company for payment of a sum of Rs.25,26,60,836/ • ,.. - as directed by the ORT, Chandigarh, in its final order. It is only after the Recovery Officer fixed the reserve price for the auction sale of the Company's assets that the respondent-Company B filed an appeal before the ORT on 18.10.2004 under Section 30 of the RDDB Act against the said order of the Recovery ~ Officer. It has also to be noted that on 27 .10.2004 the ORT allowed the auction sale to proceed but directed that the sale should not be confirmed until further orders. c 24. The next relevant date is 30.10.2004when the auction was concluded and the appellant was declared to be the highest · bidder and the entire sale price was deposited by the appeliant auction purchaser on 11.11.2004.

25. It is significant to note that in the appeal, being Appeal 0 No.52 of 2004 under Section 30 of the RDDB Act, an application t was moved by the respondent-Company on 15.12.2004 for 1.- setting aside the ex-parte final order passed on 15.7.2003 and the appellant also filed an application for impleadment to enable 't- it to oppose the prayer for setting aside the final order. E

26. The next date of significance is 26. 7 .2005 when Appeal No.52 of 2004 filed by the respondent-Company under Section 30 of the RDDB Act against the order of the Recovery Officer fixing the reserve price of the Company's assets was allowed by DRT-1, Delhi, subject to the Company fulfilling certain terms and conditions as indicated in the order. ~ . I

27. It is only thereafter on 21.12.2005 that the respondent- Company filed a Reference before the BIFR which was registered as BIFR case No.4 of 2006 and the same came to be dismissed on 3.4.2006. ~- .....

28. In the meantime, the appeal preferred by the respondent-Company before the Debts r(ecovery AppeHate Tribunal against the order of ORT-I, D~!hi, allowing the Cornpany's Appeal No.52 of 2004 was dismisGed and the sale i-i

KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/S ARI HANT 761 THREADS LTD. & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

in favour of the appellant herein was confirmed, subject to A deposit of the entire sale price.

29. It will be of interest to note that the proceedings taken by the respondent-Company after the passing of the final order by ORT, Chandigarh, on 15.7.2003, were directed against fixation of the reserve price by the Recovery Officer though in B ~ Appeal No.52 an application was made by the Company for setting aside the final order passed by the ORT Chandigarh. The same was however, of no consequence as the appeal was preferred against the order of the Recovery Officer fixing the reserve price of the Company's assets and not the final order, C which, in any event, could not have been challenged in the said proceedings. In effect, the final order passed by the ORT, Chandigarh, directing the respondent-Company to pay the dues of IDBI remained unchallenged and attained finality. The two-::' courses available to the respondent No.1-Company for D -'( preferring an appeal under Section 20 of the RDDB Act or by way of an application for setting aside the sale under Rule 60 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not resorted to by the responc::Jent-Company. Instead, it chose to adopt a path restricted to the setting aside of the auction sale E on the ground that the reserve price of the Company's assets had not been correctly fixed by the Recovery Officer prior to the auction sale.

30. Consequently, the scope of the appeal preferred by the respondent-Company was confined only to the question as F ~ to whether the reserve price had been correctJy,,fixed by the Recovery Officer. ·

31. This brings us to the next question regarding the applicability of Section 22 of SICA in the proceedings initiated G by IDBI for recovery of its dues under the provisions of the RDDB Act, 1993.

32. As will be seen from what has been indicated hereinabove, the final order was passed on 15.7.2003 by ORT, Chandigarh, at a point of time when no Reference had at all H

762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

• L ~ A been made by the respondent-Company to the BIFR for being declared a "sick company". The auction was held and concluded on 30.10.2004, again before a Reference had been made by the respondent-Company to the BIFR. It is only on 21.12.2005 ~ that the Company filed a Reference before the BIFR which was B rejected on 3.4.2006. In bet\tVeen, the appeal preferred by the respondent-Company (No.52 of 2004) before the DRT under ~ Section 30 of the RDDB Act was allowed and the auction sale was set aside, but the final order passed by ORT, Chandigarh, remained untouched. The appeal preferred by the appellant c herein against the order of the DRT allowing Appeal No.52 of 2004 was subsequently decided in favour of the appellant on 10.2.2006 and the auction sale was confirmed in favour of the appellant with a direction upon the Recovery Officer and the other concerned authorities to complete the sale in favour of the appellant herein. It is only on 15.9.2006, after all the aforesaid D orders had been passed that a second Reference was filed by 'r the respondent-Company before the BIFR on 15.9.2006 and on 22.2.2007 the Company was declared to be a "sick company" by the BIFR. r"'

E 33. The above dates will amply show that the proceedings \ had.been taken by the IDBI under Section 19 of the RDDB Act ' and the final order had been passed therein long before the BIFR came on to the scene. Even the auction sale was concluded in favour of the appellant before the first Reference F was made by the Company to the BIFR. The sale was confirmed by the DRAT before the writ petitions were allowed by the High ,.. ~·

Court on the ground that the recovery proceedings were barred •t under Section 22 of· SICA. Ultimately, the Company's first Reference was rejected by the BIFR and only upon a second .. (

reference filed by the respondent-Company on 15.9-200!3 was G the Company declared by the BIFR to be a ''.sick company" on 22.2.2007. . , . ..... .....- 1.

34. In other words, the final order in the recovery proceedings under Section ·19 of the RDDB Act was passed H ~nd the auction sale was concluded before the first Reference

KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/S ARIHANT 763 THREADS LTD. & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

~ .... was filed by the respondent-Company with the BIFR and long before the respondent-Company was declared to be a sick Company on 22.2.2007. It is, therefore, clear that the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, were sought to be invoked by the respondent No.1-Company after the recovery proceedings had been concluded in favour of the appellant who had also deposited the sale price in respect of his offer which had been accepted by the Recovery Officer.

35. For reasons which are obvious, the respondent- Company chose not to take recourse either to Section 20 of the RDDB Act or Rule 60 of the Second Schedule of the Income c Tax Act, 1961, and took a chance of filing an appeal under Section 30 of the RDDB Act with regard to the fixation of the reserve price of the Company's assets by the Recovery Officer for the purposes of the auction sale and the scope of the appeal was limited to such issue alone. D

1 36. Since the respondent-Company did not challenge the final order of the ORT, Chandigarh, the same continued to be in force and was carried to its logical conclusion by the holding of auction sale and confirmation thereof in favour of the appellant herein. E

37. The order passed by the DRAT on 10.2.2006 confirming the sale in favour of the appellant was made long before the respondent-Company was declared to be a "sick company" on 22.2.2007. The High Court was, therefore, in error F in applying the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA when the

' sale had already been confirmed in favour of the appellant and the purchase price had already been deposited. Furthermore, the first Reference made by the respondent-Company was also rejected by the BIFR on 3.4.2006. G

38. Apart from the above, even on merits, the conduct of ~ _,) the respondent No.1-company leaves much to be desired. Without challenging the final order passed by the ORT, Chandigarh, allowing the Bank's· claim of Rs.25,26,60,836/- together with interest@ 7.8% per annum, the said respondent H

764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS _ [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A questioned the order of the Recovery Officer, fixing the reserve price of the Company's assets for the purposes of the .auc!tion sale, under Section 30 of the RDDB Act, havin9 f~ll knowledge of the fact that the final order of the ORT, Chandigarh, coli Id not be challenged in such appeaLThe steps taken bY,me respondent B No.1, Company were far from bona fide. and. were only aimed · at stalling the auction sale. Even at· the time of auction of the company's assets, no attempt was made by the Respondent No; 1-Company to secure a bid higher thah thalof the appellant.

· 39. Having regard to the above, in my view nothing further C remains to be decided by the High Court.

40. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court impugned in the appei:ll is set aside with costs asses.sed at Rs.50,000/-. · D ORDE.R ' ' '

Although, both ofus·held that the appeal deserves to be allowed and .the order of the High Court is to be set aside, _in view of the difference of opinion on interpretation of S.ection 34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and f:'inancial Institutions E Act, 1993, the Registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for taking appropriate action in c;iccordance· with law.

S.K.S. Matter referred.