VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL TMC LAW COLLEGE

MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent

Name : Piyush.S.Kothari

Roll No: 180

IN THE HON’BLE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

APPEAL NO- _____/ 2015

In the matter of the Companies Act, 1956
CIVIL APPEAL NO. _____ OF 2015
COMPANY APPEAL NO. _________ OF 2015

PROSPERITY BANK LTD APPELLANT

V.
MERCHANDISE CO. LTD&Ors RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENT
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH

COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE PROSPERITY
BANK AS SECURED CREDITORS WITH
FLOATING CHARGE PURSUANT TO THE
AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 22, 2008

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH

COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE PROSPERITY
BANK AS SECURED CREDITORS WITH FIXED
CHARGE PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT
DATED JULY 23, 2008

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE

OF THE HIGH COURT IN APPOINTING CROWN
BANK LTD AS THE SUPERVISOR VIOLATED
THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE SUPERVISOR

VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE MORE SPECIFICALLY ‘NEMO JUDEX
IN CAUSA SUA’ AND ‘AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM’

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH

COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE PROSPERITY
BANK AS SECURED CREDITORS WITH
1
FLOATING CHARGE PURSUANT TO THE
AGREEMENT DATED ON
MEMORANDUM APRIL 22,OF2008
BEHALF THE RESPONDENTS

ISSUE II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad
Cal Calcutta
Del Delhi
Ed. Edition
MAD Madras
Ori Orissa
PAT Patna
P&H Punjab and Haryana
PLR Punjab Law Reporters
Raj Rajasthan
Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
SCR Supreme Court Reporter

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 THE HON’BLE DIVISON BENCH OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION
IN THIS MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
READ ALONG WITH
CHAPTER 1 RULE 1 AND 8 OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT APPELLATE SIDE RULES,
1960
1. “Jurisdiction ordinarily exercised by Division Court of two judges
The Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction of the Court on the Appellate side shall,
except in cases where it is otherwise provided for by these rules, be exercised by
Division Court consisting of two or more judges.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, the Chief Justice may
assign any matter or categories of matters, which can be disposed off by a Single
judge, to a Division Bench
8. Reference to two or more judges – if it shall appear to any judge, either on the
application of the party or otherwise, that an appeal or matter can be advantageously
be heard by a bench of two or more judges, he may report to that effect to the Chief
Justice who shall make such order thereon as he shall think fit.”

1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 Cases

1. H. V. Low and Co. Ltd. v. Pulinbiharilal Singha and Ors AIR 1933 Cal 154; Colonial
Trust Corpn., Re (1879) 15 Ch D 465 (CA)
2. Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 2138

3. Supercool Referigation and Air Conditioning v. Hoverd Industries Ltd (1994) 3

NZLR 300
4. Evans v. Rival Granite Quarries Co., Ltd. (1910) 2 K.B. 979;
5. The Government Stock Investment and other Securities Company. v. Manila Railway
Co. (1895) 2 Ch. 551; 64 L.J. Ch. 740
6. The Government Stock and other Securities Investment Company v. Manila Railway
Co. (1897) A.C. 81; 66 L.J. Ch. 102; 75 L.T. 553; 45 W.R. 353;
7. Independent Automatic Sales Ltd. v. Knowels and Foster  (1962) 3 All ER 27
8. Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Ltd v. Scottish & Newcastle [2007] EWCA Civ
684;
9. Arvind Mills & Ors v State of Gujarat & Ors. (2002) 3 GLR 624
10. Section 391, Companies Act ,1956
11. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh v Mohd. Ismail & Another 1996 (4) ALT 502
12. Mohan Lal v Himachal Pradesh State Forest (2008) ILLJ 524 HP
13. M. Koteshwara Rao v Apstrc, Tirupati & Ors 1997 (3) ALD 491
14. Union of India v B.N. Jha AIR 2003 SC 325
15. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v Costal Gujarat Power Ltd & ors (SC CASE)
16. Arvind Mills & Ors v State of Gujarat & Ors (2002) 3 GLR 624
17. Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India 1992 AIR 248
18. ICICI Ltd. v. Kothari Industrial Corporation 2005 (5) Bom CR 213
19. Chief Controlling Revenue v Manager, State Bank Of Mysore AIR 1988 Kant
20. Clenae Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (2000) 176 ALR 644.
21. Election Commission of India and another v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy and another
(1996) 4 SCC 104
22. J. Mohapatra & Co And Another v State Of Orissa And Another 1984 AIR 1572,
1985 SCR (1) 322
23. Mineral Development Ltd v The State Of Bihar And Another 1960 AIR 468, 1960
SCR (2) 909
24. Shri Tapas Sinha Roy And Ors. v Linkmen Services Pvt. Ltd 2008 141 CompCas 568
CLB
25. Union Of India And Another v W.N. Chadha AIR 1993 SC 1082
26. Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India 1981 AIR 818

1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 Statement Of Facts
1. Merchandise is an Indian Company dealing with the manufacture of automobile parts
having its main plant in Pune.
2. In 2004, the Company drew up expansion plans to set up another plant in the state of
Andhra Pradesh.
3. In order to finance its expansion plans the Company entered into a number of
agreements with several banks and financial institutions from March 2008 to January
2009.
4. Prosperity Bank is one of the lenders having its branch office in Mumbai but its major
decisions are made from Cyprus.
5. On April 22, 2008, Prosperity Bank and Merchandise Company entered into a Facility
Agreement for the disbursement of £15 million.
6. Crown Bank Co. Ltd, an Indian Bank was appointed as a facility agent and a security
trustee under the loan.
7. In early 2008, there were heavy protests in the state of Andhra Pradesh against the
setting up of the plant due to which the State Government withdrew the permission for
setting up the plant.
8. The Company faced huge losses and its share value decreased drastically.
9. The Government of Maharashtra then invited the Company to set up the plant near
Nagpur.
10. On July 23, 2008, the Company and the Bank entered into another Facility Agreement
for £2 million.
11. On August 20, 2008, the Company entered into another loan agreement with the Great
Indian Bank for an amount of 70 crores.
12. Crown Bank Co. Ltd. was appointed as a debenture trustee for both of the above
agreements.
13. In Mid 2009, there was a major global crisis triggered by the downfall of the subprime
lending markets in the US and in September 2009 there was collapse of the
automobile sector as well.
14. Due to the above happenings, the Company defaulted in making its payments to the
Prosperity Bank and the Great Indian Bank.
15. It was then decided that the Company would undergo a Corporate Debt Restructuring
scheme so it could pay off its creditors.
16. On 13th March, 2010, a meeting of all the creditors was convened where the above
proposal was proposed.
17. All the unsecured creditors would receive amounts with a 30% cut to which the
unsecured creditors indicated their preference.
18. All secured creditors would be eligible to receive 20% of their full amounts within 2
months of the scheme being approved by the High Court.
19. The Company then approached the Bombay High Court asking them to convene a
meeting of the four different classes of creditors. The meeting took place on 23 rd
April, 2010.
20. Prosperity Bank was the only creditor that had objections to the Corporate Debt
Restructuring proposal.
21. Prosperity Bank was placed as under the category of secured creditors with floating
charge for the agreement dated 22nd April, 2008.
22. For the agreement dated 23rd July, 2008, the Prosperity Bank was placed under the
category of secured creditors with fixed charge.
23. The Bank filed objections before the Company judge of the High Court against the
scheme.
24. The Single judge rejected all the objections and approved the classification of the
Prosperity Bank as in accordance with law.
25. It appointed Crown Bank as a supervisor to ensure repayment of 20% of debts to the
secured creditors.
26. Crown Bank in order to be able to do the above decided to auction off the assets held
by the Company, particularly a part of the Manufacturing Plant in Pune.
27. The Prosperity Bank then filed a petition before the High Court under its writ
jurisdiction for violation of principles of natural justice.

1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE 1
1. Whether The Single Judge Of The High Court Erred In Holding The Prosperity
Bank As Secured Creditors With Floating Charge Pursuant To The Agreement
Dated April 22, 2008?

ISSUE 2
2. Whether The Single Judge Erred In Holding Prosperity Bank As Secured
Creditors With Fixed Charge Pursuant To The Agreement Dated July 23,
2008?

ISSUE 3
3. Whether The Order Of The Single Judge Of The High Court In Appointing
Crown Bank Ltd. As The Supervisor Violated The Principles Of Natural
Justice?

ISSUE 4
4. Whether The Action Of The Supervisor Violates The Principles Of Natural
Justice More Specifically ‘Nemo Judex In Causa Sau’ And ‘Audi Alteram
Partem’ ?

28.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE
PROSPERITY BANK AS A SECURED CREDITOR WITH FLOATING CHARGE PURSUANT TO
THE AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 22, 2008?
 It is contended that the classification of Prosperity Bank as a secured creditor with
floating charge is an erroneous one.
 A charge cannot be crystallized on the mere default of payment.
 There was no explicit intervention on the part of the Bank.

ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE
PROSPERITY BANK AS A SECURED CREDITOR WITH FIXED CHARGE PURSUANT TO THE
AGREEMENT DATED JULY 23, 2008 ?
 It is contended that Prosperity Bank has been rightly placed in the category of secured
creditors with fixed charge.
 The Companies Act does not provide any procedure for classification of the creditors
 Prosperity Bank has no priority charge over the Great Indian Bank.

ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT IN APPOINTING
CROWN BANK LTD. AS THE SUPERVISOR VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE?
 It is contended that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in the order
passed by the Single judge.
 The order is actually passed in favor of the Prosperity Bank for speedy recovery of their
debts by an authority that they have placed complete faith in, in earlier transactions.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 ISSUE 4
WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE SUPERVISOR VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE MORE SPECIFICALLY ‘NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA’ AND ‘AUDI ALTERAM
PARTEM’
 It is contended that the actions of Crown Bank as supervisor for the entire corporate
restructuring scheme do not violate the principles of natural justice.
 The debenture trustee has full authority and rights to sell of the assets so as to ensure the
interest of the debenture holders.
 The Crown Bank has acted in a fair and just manner and there was no arbitrariness on the
part of the Bank while disposing off the manufacturing plant at Aundh for the payment of
20 percent of debts owed to secured creditors.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I
THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY DID
NOT ERR IN HOLDING PROSPERITY BANK AS A SECURED CREDITOR
WITH FLOATING CHARGE PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT DATED
APRIL 22, 2008.
It is contended that [A]. there was no crystallization of the charge specified in the
agreement dated 22/4/2008 and thus, the Hon’ble Bombay Court did not err in holding
Prosperity Bank as a secured creditor.
[A]. No Crystallization of Charge
A floating charge becomes fixed or crystallized when the debtor Company ceases to carry
on business, or goes into liquidation, or the creditor intervenes by getting a receiver
appointed or doing some other act which affects the Company’s power of disposition
over the assets charged1.
Courts have evolved many principles in relation to floating charges. 2 Firstly, a debenture
is secured by a floating charge only 3 and secondly, where no restriction is provided, any
future fixed charge will rank superior to the earlier floating charge.4
When an agreement contains a provision as to the proceeds of a particular transaction
being entered into the book debts of the company, the Company should be allowed to
continue its business to the detriment of the floating charge, which ensures protection to
the customers/debenture holders of the company. 5 This would be the detrimental to the
customers of Merchandise Co. Ltd and the business of the Company as it would not be
6
able to carry on its business if its entire source of funds from it’s customers is cut off.
Further, Prosperity Bank did not initiate winding-up proceedings against Merchandise
and since no receiver or liquidator was appointed the business continued.7
1

2
3

5
6

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDEN

Debenture trustees cannot be allowed after the happening of the specified event to allow
the business to go on and then later turn round and treat all the transactions as void under
the debenture deed.8 It has also been stated that, the essence of a floating security is that it
should remain dormant until the debenture holder intervenes.9 Further, real crystallization
takes place not on default but as previously stated, on the intervention of the debenture
holder.10 Prosperity Bank allowed the business to continue and did not raise any question
in the year of default11 and did not opt for winding up of Merchandise either.12
Therefore, it is submitted that there was no crystallization of charge pursuant to the
agreement dated 22/04/08.

Issue II

The Single Judge Correctly Held Prosperity Bank To Be A Secured Creditor With
Fixed Charge Along With The Great Indian Bank Pursuant To The Agreement
Dated July 23, 2008
8

9
10

11

12
It is contended that
[A]. there is no priority charge over the claim of the Great Indian Bank,
[B]. Prosperity Bank cannot be classified in a separate class of creditors and therefore, the
learned single judge was correct in rejecting all the objections made by Prosperity Bank. 13
[A]. Prosperity Bank has no priority charge over the claim of The Great Indian
Bank
Pari Passu or with an equal step, equally without preference14 is used in cases of creditors
who are entitled to receive out of the same fund without any precedence over each
other.15 A claim of priority charge is explicitly incorporated in the agreement dated
August 20, 200816
Where no restriction is provided in a contract, any future specific charge will rank
superior to the earlier floating charge 17 and future floating charge will be inferior to the
earlier floating charge.18
The Terms and Conditions19 between Merchandise and the Great Indian Bank specify that
all other obligations of the Company rank pari passu in right of payment with all other
agreements.20 Further, the Great Indian Bank was entitled to claim the Manufacturing
Plant at Aundh, Pune21 along with Prosperity Bank.22 Thus, the rule of pari passu applies
and there is no priority claim towards Prosperity Bank.
[B]. Prosperity Bank cannot be classified in a separate class of creditors
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

A class is formed with a homogenous group of members with a common interest. 23 The
authority on this matter is the landmark case of Sovereign Assurance v. Dodd24 wherein
it was stated, “it seems plain that we must give such a meaning to the term class as will
prevent the section being so worked as to result in confiscation and injustice, and that it
must be confined to those persons whose rights are not so dissimilar as to make it
impossible for them to consult together with a view to their common interest.”
In deciding whether the statutory procedure has been complied with, the court will, in
particular, ensure that the meetings of separate 'classes' of creditors affected have been
held.25 Further, the country from where the debt arose does not matter and creditors are
grouped into a single class.26 Facilities from a foreign creditor for expansion purposes
will be treated under a single class and not differently. 27The law does not prescribe any
separate class of creditors based on Nationality and the decision of the majority
creditors prevails28. Further, the scheme of restructurinreceived an overwhelming
support from each class of creditors.29 Therefore, the claim of Prosperity Bank is
untenable under the Companies Act30
ISSUE III
The Hon’ble Single judge did not violate the Principles of Natural Justice
It is contended that the principles of natural justice being [A]. Audi Alteram Partem and
[B]. Nemo Judex in causa sua were not violated.
3.1.1. Nemo Judex in causa sua

23

24

25
26

27

28

29

30
Nemo Judex in causa sua, i.e. the authority deciding the matter should be free from bias 31.
No one should be a judge in his own cause32 or the rule against bias33.
Unless the statute provides otherwise, the implication of natural justice will require
absence of bias in the adjudicating officer or authority 34. In all common law countries,
including India the test of bias is the objective test of real likelihood or real possibility of
bias35.  
In the present case, the order appointing Crown Bank Co. Ltd as the supervisor was not a
biased decision. The purpose of appointing Crown Bank was to ensure that the secured
creditor, that are Prosperity Bank Co. Ltd and Great Indian Bank would receive 20
percent of their full amounts within two months of approval of the scheme of the High
Court.
It is imperative to note here that Crown Bank Co. Ltd had been appointed as the Facility
Agent and a Security Trustee for loan transactions that took place between Prosperity
Bank Ltd and Merchandise Co. Ltd.
The Courts in various cases have tried to interpret and decipher the meaning of the above
terms by listing down their functions. It has laid down that a security trustee acts on
behalf of the lenders and is a representative of the lenders 36. The term, facility agent has
been used interchangeably with the term agent for the lenders. A facility agent acts as an
agent and security trustees for the securities created/to be created by the Company in
favour of the Security Agent and Trustees on the Mortgaged Premises. 37 There exists a
fiduciary relationship.

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

Crown Bank was a facility agent and a security trustee for Prosperity Bank for the
agreements dated, 22nd April, 2008 and 23rd July, 2008. Crown Bank has not only been
appointed as a facility agent but also as a security trustee, which only goes to ascertain
the contention that Prosperity Bank had placed complete faith in Crown Bank.
Therefore when the order was passed by the Single judge to appoint Crown Bank as
supervisor, there is no scope for the rule of bias at all. Prosperity Bank should have no
objections for an order that has clearly been passed in their favor. An agent that has
represented them in the past, an agent on whom they have shown such unconditional trust
and faith has again been appointed as supervisor for a cause that is clearly for their own
benefit. Crown Bank was appointed as supervisor so as to ensure that secured creditors
one of which is Prosperity Bank, are given 20 percent of their loan within the stipulated
time.
3.1.2. Audi Alteram Partem
The maxim audi alteram partem accentuates the rule of fair hearing. It lays down that no
one should be condemned unheard. It is the first principle of the civilised jurisprudence
that a person facing the charges must be given an opportunity to be heard, before any
decision is taken against him. Hearing means “fair hearing‟. 38
In the present matter at hand, the Prosperity Bank was given complete opportunity to
present its objections before the Single judge of the High Court. It was not denied a fair
hearing before the competent authority. The order passed was one of a bona fide nature as
the appointment was for the benefit of Prosperity Bank so that they do not have to suffer
pecuniary damages any more. Therefore, the order of the Single judge did not violate
Natural Justice Principles.
ISSUE IV
The Actions of the Supervisor Crown Bank did not violate the Principles of Nemo
and Audi

It is contended that Crown Bank Co. Ltd has violated [A]. Nemo and [B]. Audi
38
Crown Bank acted in a fair and just manner and there was no arbitrariness on the part of
the Bank while disposing off the manufacturing plant at Aundh for the payment of 20
percent of debts owed to secured creditors.39
4.1. Nemo Judex in causa sua
As stated above40 a person cannot be a judge in his own cause. The debenture trustee has
full authority and is well within his rights to sell off the assets for the benefit of the
debenture holders41. It is the responsibility of the trustee to look after the rights and
interests of the debenture holder and therefore has the right to sell off the secured
property42. If the sale of property is for the benefit of all parties, it would not amount to a
violation of this principle.43
In the matter at hand Crown Bank does not fall under either of the two categories, i.e. of
personal bias or pecuniary bias as it was merely a supervisor for the execution of the
scheme and in pursuance of that it was essential to dispose of the assets. The Company
was in huge debts and payment of the 20 percent of debts owed to secured creditors
within two months was necessary and that would not have been possible without the
auctioning of the assets.
The Crown Bank being a supervisor and the debenture trustee at the same time had the
authority to sell the Aundh plant for the purpose of paying the debenture holders. Also,
the Crown Bank was not the only creditor that would benefit from this sale. The Great
Indian Bank, Prosperity Bank and other various lenders would also gain from this action.
It is also contended that secured creditors with fixed charge are given more priority over
the secured creditors with floating charge, hence by way of selling the property the
Prosperity Bank and the Great Indian Bank would be paid first and thus the question of
Crown Bank having a personal or pecuniary interest is negated.
39

40

41

42

43

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

Arguendo Crown Bank was a judge in its own cause, the situation would fall under the
exception of Doctrine of Necessity, where it is absolutely necessary to decide a case of
Bias and there is no other option left. The principles of natural justice can not only be
modified but in exceptional cases they can even be excluded44. 
The law permits certain things to be carried out as a matter of necessity 45. The doctrine of
necessity makes it imperative for the authority to carry out its statutory functions 46 and if
the doctrine of necessity is not allowed full play in certain situations, it would hinder the
course of justice.
Interpreting the same to the case at hand it could be said that it was a situation of
necessity because according to the scheme, the Merchandise Company was expected to
pay 20 percent of the full amounts owed to them within two months of the approval of
the scheme. Considering the time constraints and meeting the commitments, the Crown
Bank did no wrong in disposing of the manufacturing plant for the purpose of payment of
debts and it is to be noted that they were specifically appointed to execute the corporate
debt restructuring scheme.
4.2. Audi Alteram Partem
It is contended that the concept of fair hearing is an elastic one and does not have a
precise definition47. One can get an exemption if the other party is not being heard and
this would not violate the principles of Natural justice if the action is bona fide and if
immediate action is necessary 48
The principle could be curtailed in situations when immediate action is called for 49 and
degree of urgency however depends on various facts and circumstances 50.
The case at hand falls under both the categories, Crown Bank acted in a bona fide manner
by selling of the property and considering the gravity of the situation paying of the losses
44

45

46
47

48
49

50
 was absolutely essential at the moment as the time allotted for repayment was only two
months. On 23rd April, 2010, a meeting was conducted for the approval of the scheme
under the auspices of the High Court and Prosperity Bank was a part it. The Bank did
raise objections which were rejected by the Court which is a clear indication of the fact
that Prosperity Bank was not condemned or deprived of their right to be heard.
Also the High Court has already ratified the corporate debt restructuring scheme and the
Crown Bank was expected to supervise the same and they were only following the orders
of the Court when auctioning the plant.
In India, it has been generally acknowledged in exceptional cases of emergency where
prompt action, preventive or remedial, is needed, the requirement of notice and hearing
may be obviated51. Therefore, if the right to be heard will paralyze the process, law will
exclude it. In the current case the action taken by the Crown Bank was remedial in nature
and the circumstance was of such nature that immediate action was called for and in such
instances law exempts the necessity of the parties from being heard.Thus, there is no
violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
1. Uphold the order passed by the learned Single judge which classified Prosperity Bank as
a Secured Creditor with Floating Charge pursuant to the Agreement dated 22/04/08
2. Uphold the order passed by the learned Single judge which classified Prosperity Bank To
Be A Secured Creditor With Fixed Charge Along With The Great Indian Bank Pursuant
To The Agreement Dated July 23, 2008

3. Uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge which appointed Crown Bank as
supervisor.
4. Declare that Crown Bank has in no way violated the principles of natural justice.

51

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

5. Dismiss the Appeal
AND/OR
Pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice,
equity and good conscience. And for this the Respondents, as in duty bound, shall
humbly pray.
S/d_____________
(COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS)