| The DRT, following an application by the Unit Trust of India and the UTI Trust Company Ltd for recovery of Rs 15.90 crore, passed the order. |
| It also passed an ad-interim injunction restraining HPL from transferring , disposing of and alienating its properties until further orders except the usual course of business. |
| HPL had . moved an appeal against the DRT order before the appellate tribunal. The tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that 'the order is not a final one and business of the company will not disturbed by this order'. |
| Meantime, the company plans to move the high court against the appellate tribunal's order. |
| In its appeal, the company said UTI obtained the order ex parte on March 26 , 2004, and it had serious consequence on the functioning of the company. |
| It was stated in the appeal the order cause serious injury to the reputation of HPL. The appeal further said that unless the order set aside, it would cause hardship to the HPL. The order is a total non-application of mind , the appeal added. |
| Opposing the appeal, UTI argued that HPL had availed of various credit facilities from the UTI on execution of usual banking documents but did not comply with the terms and conditions of the sanction and as such the accounts became highly irregular. |
| It was also argued that in spite of repeated demands the HPL failed to pay even a portion of outstanding amount of Rs 15,90, 20, 220/. Disputing the allegation of non payment of any amount, HPL argued that on February 18, 2004, UTI received a sum of Rs 3, 96, 716, 236/ which UTI have suppressed before the tribunal. |
| UTI further said that if the order of injunction lifted then HPL may dispose of the security properties resulting the interest of UTI will be frustrated and UTI will suffer irreparable loss and injury. |
| UTI also argued the receiver will make an inventory of the security properties and only take symbolic possession of those properties, causing no business hamper of HPL. |
Top Section
Explore Business Standard