2005 (5) TMI 337 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the suit under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act.
2. Applicability of section 22(1) of the Act to appeals filed by an industrial company.
3. Contention regarding payment of court fees for a declaration about a document without a prayer for recovery of money.

Analysis:
1. The High Court considered the issue of maintainability of the suit under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. The Counsel for the respondent argued that the company had gone under the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), making the suit or appeal not maintainable. However, the Court noted that the present suit was for a declaration regarding a document, which does not fall under the categories specified in section 22 of the Act that would render it non-maintainable. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondent was rejected.

2. The Court addressed the applicability of section 22(1) of the Act to appeals filed by an industrial company. The respondent relied on a previous judgment but the Court clarified that the question involved in the present case was different. The Court held that the judgment cited by the respondent was not applicable to the current situation, thereby dismissing the argument.

3. Another issue discussed was the contention regarding the payment of court fees for seeking a declaration about a document without a prayer for the recovery of money. The appellant argued that the suit only sought a declaration without any consequential relief, falling under section 6(4)(j). The respondent, however, contended that since the document showed an amount of Rs. 75 lakhs as recoverable, the claim could be monetarily valued. The Court examined the relief sought by the appellant and found no merit in the respondent's submissions. As no other provision in law or authority was presented, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the suit to be numbered.