9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 in relation to proceedings under section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956. Analysis: The appellant, a sick industry declared by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), challenged the order passed by a learned single judge in W.P. No. 16606 of 1990. The issue revolved around whether section 22 of the Act extends to and attracts proceedings under section 58A(9) of the Companies Act. The CLB allowed depositors' applications under section 58A(9), leading to the appellant's writ petition being dismissed by the single judge, prompting the appeal. The key consideration was whether the claim for return of deposit could be classified as a "suit for recovery of money" against the company under revival by BIFR. The court examined the definition of 'deposit' under section 58A and referred to a Supreme Court decision in Vijay Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1990] 68 Comp. Cas. 597. The Supreme Court's ruling clarified that certain amounts held in trust by a company, like sales tax collected from customers, do not fall under the ambit of section 22(1) as they are not owned by the company. The court emphasized that a deposit by depositors is not a loan but a sum held in trust by the company until maturity. Therefore, a claim for the return of such deposits does not constitute a suit for recovery of money due. Section 22(1) prohibits specific proceedings against the company without BIFR's consent, and its restrictions do not apply to situations lacking elements of execution or distress against the company's property. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the appeal, upholding the learned single judge's decision. The court concluded that the prohibition under section 22(1) does not extend to claims for the return of deposits made by depositors, as these do not qualify as suits for recovery of money in the context of the Act.
|
