ITEM No.1-A              Court No.4          SECTION  XVI-A (for judgment)                  

S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Transfer Petition © No. 740-741/08    

M/S VINEDALE DISTILLERIES LTD. & ANR.          Petitioner (s)

                             VERSUS

DENA BANK & ORS.                            Respondent (s)

Date : 11/01/2010  This  Petition was called on for judgment today.           For Petitioner (s)   Mr. D.K. Sinha,Adv.

 For Respondent(s)  Ms. Manjusha  Wadhwa,Adv.

Mr. E. C. Agarwala,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir pronounced the  

Judgment   of  the  Bench  comprising  His  Lordship,  

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Aftab  Alam  and  Hon'ble  Mr.  

Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.

The Transfer Petitions are allowed in terms of  

the signed judgment  placed on the file.

            (Ganga Thakur)            (Juginder Kaur)             P.S. to Registrar              Court Master

 (Signed non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file.)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.740-741 OF 2008

M/s Vinedale Distilleries Ltd.  and Another … Petitioners

Versus

Dena Bank and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. These Transfer Petitions have been filed by M/s  

Vinedale  Distilleries  Ltd.  for  transfer  of  two  

Original  Applications  pending  before  the  Debts  

Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the  

DRT’), Hyderabad, to the DRT, Jhandewalan, Delhi.  

While O.A. No.29 of 2000 was filed by Dena Bank  

against the Petitioner Company, S.A. No.157 of 2008  

was filed by the Petitioner Company against Dena

Bank  before  the  DRT,  Hyderabad.  The  said  

applications had been made on the basis of an order  

passed  by  this  Court  on  4th January,  2008,  in  

Transfer  Petition  (C)  No.945  of  2006.   While  

allowing  the  said  Transfer  Petition  and  thereby  

transferring  various  suits  pending  between  the  

parties before the Civil Court in Andhra Pradesh to  

the Delhi High Court, this Court, on consent of the  

parties, also directed as follows :-

“In order to avoid any future confusion,  on consent of the parties, any suit which  may be filed in future touching upon the  control and management of the Company in  question,  should  be  filed  before  the  Hon’ble  Delhi  High  Court,  which  will  decide the matters.”

2. Having  regard  to  the  above  direction,  the  

Petitioners herein have prayed that the two above-  

mentioned matters filed under the provisions of the  

Recovery  of  Debts  Due  to  Banks  and  Financial  

Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as  

4

‘the DRT Act’) and Section 17 of the Securitization  

and  Reconstruction  of  Financial  Assets  and  

Enforcement  of  Security  Interest  Act,  2002  

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  Securitization  

Act’), both pending before the DRT, Hyderabad, be  

transferred to the DRT, Jhandewalan, Delhi.   

3. Appearing in support of the Transfer Petitions,  

Mr.  Chetan  Sharma,  learned  Senior  Advocate,  

submitted  that  since  by  virtue  of  the  aforesaid  

order  dated  4th January,  2008,  all  matters  

pertaining  to  the  Petitioner  Company  and  its  

management had been transferred to the Delhi High  

Court in order to avoid confusion, the proceedings  

pending  before  the  DRT,  Hyderabad,  were  also  

required to be transferred to the DRT, Jhandewalan,  

Delhi,  so  that  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  

Vinedale Distilleries and its management could be  

heard  and  disposed  of  by  the  Delhi  High  Court  

exclusively.  Mr. Sharma submitted that in order to  

avoid a possible conflict of decisions among Courts  

operating in different territorial jurisdictions in  

5

regard  to  the  management  and  control  of  the  

Petitioner  Company,  this  Court  had  directed  all  

matters relating to the Company and its management  

to be decided by the Delhi High Court exclusively.  

Mr. Sharma submitted that even further proceedings  

against the Award of the DRT in Delhi would have to  

be filed before the Delhi High Court which was also  

in  seisin  of  the  matters  pertaining  to  the  

management of the company.   Mr. Sharma submitted  

that in the interest of justice and in keeping with  

the spirit of the order passed by this Court on 4th  

January, 2008, the pending proceedings before the  

DRT, Hyderabad, should be transferred to the DRT,  

Jhandewalan, Delhi.  

4. Responding  to  Mr.  Sharma’s  submissions,  Mr.  

Rakesh  Tikku,  learned  Advocate  appearing  for  

Respondent No.1 Bank, contended that in view of the  

disputes among the three groups fighting for the  

management of the Petitioner Company, the payment  

of the dues of the Bank were being successfully  

6

avoided.  It  was  submitted  that  the  present  

applications  were  nothing  but  a  ploy  to  further  

defer payment of the outstanding dues of the Bank  

amounting to almost Rs.19 crores as on the date of  

the hearing.  It was submitted that in the contest  

relating  to  the  management  of  the  Company,  the  

payment  of  the  dues  of  the  Bank  were  being  

sidelined and the Bank was, therefore, willing to  

abide by any order that might be passed by this  

Court in the present Transfer Petitions since its  

only  concern  was  to  recover  its  dues  from  the  

Petitioner Company. In fact, learned counsel for  

the Bank questioned the manner in which one group,  

referred  to  as  the  S.K.  Agarwal  Group,  had  

initiated  the  proceedings  before  the  DRT,  

Hyderabad, challenging the order passed by the Bank  

under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act in  

January,  2006,  after  a  delay  of  786  days.  

According to learned counsel, the very situation  

which this Court had wanted to avoid by its order  

dated 4th January, 2008, was sought to be frustrated  

7

by the filing of the Appeal by the S.K. Agarwal  

group  before  the  DRT,  Hyderabad,  while  all  the  

other  matters  pertaining  to  the  Company  and  its  

management were pending in Delhi.  

5. The  petitioner’s  prayer  for  transfer  of  the  

pending proceedings before the DRT, Hyderabad, was,  

however,  seriously  opposed  on  behalf  of  private  

respondents.  It was urged by Mr. E.C. Agrawala,  

learned  Advocate  appearing  for  the  private  

respondents, that the proceedings before the DRT,  

Hyderabad,  were  not  covered  by  the  directions  

contained in the order passed by this Court on 4th  

January,  2008.   Mr.  Agrawala  submitted  that  the  

said order related only to suits in regard to the  

management and control of the Petitioner Company.  

As  far  as  the  proceedings  before  the  DRT,  

Hyderabad,  are  concerned,  Mr.  Agrawala  submitted  

that  they  related  to  the  recovery  of  the  

outstanding dues of the Bank which the Bank was  

entitled  to  initiate  before  the  Debts  Recovery  

Tribunal and had nothing to do with the management  

8

of the Company as such.   It was urged that the  

proceedings before the DRT were and would have to  

be treated on a different footing in relation to  

the suits pending before the Delhi High Court for  

the  right  to  manage  the  Company.   Mr.  Agrawala  

submitted that there was, therefore, no ground made  

out  on  behalf  of  the  Petitioner  Company  for  

transfer  of  the  proceedings  before  the  DRT,  

Hyderabad, to the DRT, Jhandewalan, Delhi.   

6. We  have  carefully  considered  the  submissions  

made  on  behalf  of  the  respective  parties,  and,  

although,  technically  speaking  the  proceedings  

before the DRT, Hyderabad, are not covered by the  

directions contained in the order of 4th January,  

2008,  due  weightage  has  to  be  given  to  the  

intention of this Court that all matters pertaining  

to the management of the Petitioner Company should  

be  heard  and  decided  by  one  Court  to  avoid  

conflicting judgments.  In fact, that was the very  

object and purport with which all the pending civil  

matters in the State of Andhra Pradesh touching the  

9

management of the Petitioner Company were directed  

to be heard by the Delhi High Court exclusively. In  

keeping with the above intention and purport of the  

said order, it was only but reasonable that the  

proceedings before the DRT, Hyderabad, should be  

transferred to the DRT, Jhandewalan, Delhi, since  

all  the  other  proceedings  relating  to  the  

management and control of the Petitioner Company  

are  being  heard  by  the  Delhi  High  Court.  

Furthermore, it is the Delhi High Court which is  

the appellate forum against an order of the DRT,  

Delhi.  Therefore, in keeping with the spirit of  

the  directions  contained  in  the  order  of  4th  

January,  2008,  we  are  inclined  to  allow  the  

Transfer  Petition  filed  by  M/s  Vinedale  

Distilleries Ltd.  

7. The Transfer Petitions are, therefore, allowed.  

Let O.A. No.29 of 2000, Dena Bank vs. M/s Vinedale  

Distilleries  Ltd.  &  Ors.,  and  Securitization  

Application  No.157  of  2008,  M/s  Vinedale  

Distilleries Ltd. vs. Dena Bank, pending before the  

10

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh,  

stand transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal,  

Jhandewalan, Delhi.   

8. There will, however, be no order as to costs.  

………………………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

………………………………………………………J. (AFTAB ALAM)

………………………………………………………J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

New Delhi, Dated: January 11, 2010.  

11