2017 (9) TMI 1619 - HC - Companies Law

Failing to provide for continuity of a redressal forum for the companies which is aggrieved by the scheme sanctioned by BIFR before the Repeal Act came into force - Held that - The respondent no.1 has placed before us an office memorandum dated 9th August, 2017. Perusal thereof would show that this office memorandum does not address the impact of the repeal on appeals as those which had been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 prays for a short adjournment to take instructions far as the appeal of the petitioner is concerned and other persons similarly located. On his request, list on 12th December, 2017.

Summary

Issues:
1. Scheme sanctioned by BIFR and modified by order.
2. Appeal under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
3. Abolishment of AAIFR and lack of redressal forum post-repeal.
4. Impact of repeal on pending appeals.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed by a company regarding a scheme sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and modified by an order. The scheme was sanctioned on the 3rd of September, 2015. The company, aggrieved by the order, filed a statutory appeal under Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 before the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR). However, due to the repeal of the Sick Industrial Company (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003, the AAIFR was abolished, leaving the petitioner without a redressal forum post-repeal.

2. The petitioner raised concerns about the lack of continuity of a redressal forum for companies aggrieved by schemes sanctioned by BIFR before the Repeal Act came into force. The respondent presented an office memorandum dated 9th August, 2017, which did not address the specific impact of the repeal on appeals like the one filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent requested a short adjournment to seek instructions regarding the petitioner's appeal and others in similar situations.

3. The court granted the adjournment and scheduled the next hearing for 12th December, 2017, to allow the respondent to provide further information and instructions regarding the appeal and the implications of the repeal on pending appeals. The judgment reflects the legal complexities arising from the repeal of the legislation and the challenges faced by companies seeking redressal in the absence of the previously established redressal forum.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues addressed in the judgment, focusing on the scheme sanctioned by BIFR, the appeal under the relevant Act, the consequences of AAIFR's abolishment, and the need for clarity on the impact of the repeal on pending appeals.