9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to attachment notices issued by Tehsildar for realization of outstanding loan amount, interpretation of Section 15 of SICA regarding coercive steps against company assets, necessity of BIFR consent for creditor actions, dispute over attachment of petitioner's industrial unit, application for being declared as a sick industrial company under SICA, contention regarding pending reference to BIFR, legal position on creditor actions during pending BIFR reference, impact of BIFR consent on coercive actions, directive on attachment notices, requirement for BIFR to expedite reference case disposal. Analysis: The judgment addresses the challenge to attachment notices issued by Tehsildar for recovering an outstanding loan amount from the petitioner's industrial unit. The petitioner argues that coercive steps for attachment should not have been taken as they applied to be declared a sick industrial company under Section 15 of SICA, with a pending reference to BIFR. The court relies on precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like Gram Panchayat v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. to establish that during a pending BIFR reference, creditors cannot proceed against a company's assets without BIFR consent as per Section 22 of SICA. The judgment emphasizes the importance of BIFR consent in matters of creditor actions against a company's assets during a pending reference under Section 15 of SICA. It clarifies that unless permitted by BIFR, no coercive action can be taken by creditors. The court dismisses the respondent's argument that the attachment of properties should continue, highlighting that the bar under Section 22 of SICA becomes operative once a reference is registered and pending with BIFR. Furthermore, the court issues an ad interim writ directing that no effect shall be given to the attachment notices issued by Tehsildar for recovery against the petitioner or their assets. The writ also allows respondent No. 5 to seek consent from BIFR for realizing outstanding dues. Additionally, the court instructs BIFR to expedite the disposal of the reference case related to the petitioner within six months, emphasizing the need for prompt action to resolve the matter. The parties are directed to inform BIFR promptly and comply with the court's order to maintain status quo. In conclusion, the judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues surrounding the challenge to attachment notices, the necessity of BIFR consent for creditor actions during pending references, and the directive for expedited disposal of the reference case. It upholds the legal principles established by the Supreme Court and ensures the protection of the petitioner's interests while maintaining the due process under SICA.
|
