9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Company Court to proceed with winding up petitions when a reference is pending before the BIFR. 2. Determination of whether the respondent-company is an industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Company Court: The primary issue was whether the Company Court could proceed with winding up petitions under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act when a reference concerning the respondent-company was pending before the Board of Industrial Finance and Rehabilitation (BIFR). The petitioners argued that the proceedings could continue as the respondent-company was not an industrial company. Conversely, the respondent contended that once the application was registered with the BIFR, the Company Court could not proceed further. The judgment emphasized that Section 22(1) of the SICA imposes an absolute bar on proceedings for winding up, execution, distress, or the like against the properties of the industrial company once an inquiry under Section 16 is pending before the BIFR. The court noted that the jurisdictional question of whether the respondent-company is an industrial company falls within the exclusive purview of the BIFR, as it pertains to the Board's jurisdiction. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Real Value Appliances Ltd. v. Canara Bank, which clarified that the moment a reference is registered with the BIFR, an inquiry is deemed to have commenced under Section 16, triggering the bar under Section 22(1). This interpretation was reaffirmed in Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that the bar under Section 22(1) applies even after a winding-up order is passed. 2. Determination of Industrial Company Status: The petitioners argued that the respondent-company, engaged in bottling and distributing Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG), did not qualify as an industrial company since its activities did not involve manufacturing. They relied on a Division Bench decision in SHV Energy South East Ltd. v. State Investment Promotion Board, which held that filling LPG cylinders does not constitute manufacturing. The court, however, held that the definition of an industrial company under SICA includes any company owning one or more industrial undertakings, which are defined as undertakings pertaining to a scheduled industry carried on in one or more factories. The determination of whether the respondent-company is an industrial company involves examining whether it pertains to a scheduled industry and operates in a manner consistent with the definition of a factory. The court concluded that this determination falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the BIFR. It is the BIFR's responsibility to ascertain whether the respondent-company qualifies as an industrial company and, if so, whether it is a sick industrial company. Parallel adjudication by the Company Court on this issue would lead to jurisdictional chaos. Conclusion: The court decided that it could not proceed with the winding-up petitions due to the absolute bar under Section 22(1) of the SICA, given that the reference had been registered with the BIFR and was pending inquiry. The determination of whether the respondent-company is an industrial company falls within the BIFR's jurisdiction, and the Company Court's jurisdiction is ousted in this regard. The petitions were therefore dismissed, and the point was answered accordingly.
|
