Adjourning the matter to December 14 next, the presiding officer, VS Deshmukh, also ordered Amitabh and Jaya to declare on affidavit their assets as early as possible.

The tribunal held that in view of non-payment of credit facilities availed by ABCL, Canara Bank was within its right to seek attachment of Amitabh's Juhu bungalow Prateeksha, valued at Rs 10 crore in the market.

The tribunal has also temporarily restrained Amitabh and other respondents from selling or disposing of or creating third party interests over Prateeksha. However, the presiding officer turned down the bank's plea to appoint court receiver because the tribunal was not empowered to do so.

The tribunal further rejected the bank's claim to attach the posh Mansa bungalow occupied by the star and his family in suburban Juhu as it was the exclusive property of Ramola Bachchan, wife of Amitabh's brother Ajitabh.

The tribunal opined that although ABCL was declared a sick company by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), Canara Bank had the right to proceed against ABCL guarantors, Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan.

The judgement is considered significant in legal circlesbecause for the first time the tribunal here has upheld the creditor's right to proceed against guarantors of loan in the event of company moving the BIFR.

The tribunal opined that under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, borrower and surety were jointly and severally liable to repay the loan which meant that the creditor could proceed against the surety only. In such a case, there was no question of applicability of the provisions of sica, it ruled.

Counsel for the defendents, Anil Menon, submitted that on July 9 last ABCL was declared sick by BIFR under the Sick Industries Companies Act (Sica), 1985. By virtue of Section 22 of Sica, no legal proceedings against ABCL could be conducted without the permission of BIFR, he argued.

Menon also harped upon the Mumbai high court judgement delivered by justice FI Rebello on July 26 this year in ICICI VS Dhanesh Ruparalia and others. In this case, he argued, all proceedings against guarantors of loan transaction were liable to be stayed.

In an affidavit, Stanley Saldhana, constituted attorney of Amitabh Bachchan, pleaded that an appeal by Canara Bank before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (Aaifr) had not stayed the BIFR order declaring ABCL as a sick company.

Canara Bank's counsel, Nishit Dhruva, referred to the Mumbai HC judgement in Madalsa International vs Central Bank of India wherein the division bench headed by justice VP Tipnis ruled that even if an industrial company was declared sick under Sica, a creditor was legally entitled to proceed against the guarantors of the loan.

The tribunal held that the division bench judgement would take precedence over the single judge verdict and hence it was accepting the ruling cited by Canara Bank in Madalsa International vs Central Bank of India.