2001 (7) TMI 1216 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under Order 1 Rule 10(1) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for changing the name of the defendant.
2. Application under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) for staying a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits.
3. Interpretation of SICA provisions regarding the stay of legal proceedings in cases involving sick industrial companies.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiff's counsel sought to change the defendant's name from Dalmia Industries Ltd. to Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd., which was allowed by the court under Order 1 Rule 10(1) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The defendant filed an application under section 22 of SICA to stay a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits, citing the reference made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction to declare the defendant as a sick industrial company. The defendant argued that the suit fell under the category of recovery of money, thus invoking the stay provision under SICA. However, the plaintiff contended that the relief sought did not align with the provisions of SICA and relied on relevant case laws to support their argument.

3. The court considered the arguments of both parties and examined the scope of section 22 of SICA in light of previous judgments. The court emphasized that the relief of possession sought by the plaintiff did not fall under the purview of section 22 of SICA, as clarified in the Supreme Court's decision in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd.'s case. Additionally, the court analyzed the aspect of recovery of rent and mesne profits, concluding that such proceedings did not equate to recovery of money as envisioned under SICA, as highlighted in the Gujarat Steel Tube Co. Ltd.'s case.

4. Ultimately, the court dismissed the defendant's application for staying the proceedings, citing that the suit did not meet the criteria for a stay under section 22 of SICA. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents, reaffirming that the relief sought by the plaintiff did not align with the objectives of SICA regarding the stay of legal proceedings involving sick industrial companies.