9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (7) TMI 781 - HC - Companies LawOrder passed by AAIFR as well as BIFR challenged and praying therein that the petitioner be permitted to file objections to the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS) Held that - In this case, it has been specifically stipulated under Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the SICA that in case consent is not received from the concerned person, it shall be deemed that consent had been given. Petitioner did not raise any objection to the DRS nor gave written consent. Consequence of remaining silent by a party to the scheme has also been provided under the aforesaid provision of law. There was no occasion for the BIFR to extend the period beyond a period of 60 days without any request made in this regard by the petitioner. Thus, it is deemed that petitioner had consented to the DRS. W.P. dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to orders of Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction and Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction regarding Draft Rehabilitation Scheme objections. Analysis: The petitioner, a Statutory Corporation, challenged orders by the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) and the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) regarding objections to a Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS). The petitioner failed to file objections to the DRS within the stipulated 60-day period from its receipt. The BIFR sanctioned the scheme, deleting certain reliefs proposed for the petitioner. The petitioner contended that BIFR should have granted more time for objections and wrongly ordered power supply restoration to the sick company. The AAIFR dismissed the appeal, noting the petitioner's failure to request an extension of time for objections. The AAIFR held that under Section 19(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), deemed consent was inferred due to the petitioner's inaction. The petitioner relied on judgments unrelated to the SICA provisions to argue for more time to file objections. However, the court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions. Section 19(2) of SICA clearly states that if no consent is received within 60 days, it is deemed to have been given. The court distinguished the petitioner's cited cases, emphasizing the specific provisions of SICA. The court reiterated that the petitioner's silence amounted to consent as per the statutory provision, and there was no basis for BIFR to extend the objection period without a formal request. Ultimately, the court found no jurisdictional error in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition. In conclusion, the court upheld the decisions of the AAIFR and BIFR, emphasizing the statutory provisions of SICA regarding the filing of objections to the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme. The court found the petitioner's arguments lacking merit and affirmed the deemed consent due to the petitioner's failure to object within the prescribed period. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating it lacked jurisdictional error and was devoid of merits.
|
