Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (4) TMI 1311 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:

1. Judicial Propriety and Bench Composition
2. Merits of Rehabilitation Schemes
3. Applicability of Civil Procedure Code to BIFR Proceedings
4. Estoppel and Acquiescence
5. Prejudice to Petitioners

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Judicial Propriety and Bench Composition:

The primary contention revolved around whether the BIFR's decision-making process violated the principle that the same bench should hear and decide the case. The petitioners argued that the final order dated 09.12.2009 was passed by a bench different from the one that heard the final arguments on 12.11.2009. The respondents countered that the BIFR's practice of recording the summary of proceedings ensured continuity, and Section 10 of the SICA supports the validity of proceedings despite changes in bench composition. The majority of the AIFR upheld this view, emphasizing that requiring rehearings with every bench change would indefinitely delay proceedings. The minority view dissented, suggesting a remand to BIFR for reconsideration due to judicial propriety concerns.

2. Merits of Rehabilitation Schemes:

The judgment also addressed the merits of the rehabilitation schemes proposed for the sick industrial company. The BIFR and subsequently the AIFR found the scheme proposed by TSL to be the most viable, particularly in terms of securing the future of the workers. The OA's comprehensive analysis favored TSL's proposal over others, noting that RRK and PARL's schemes involved selling immovable assets, which was not in the workers' best interests. The majority of the AIFR upheld the BIFR's decision on these grounds.

3. Applicability of Civil Procedure Code to BIFR Proceedings:

There was a debate over whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) applied to BIFR proceedings. The court noted that Regulation 12(2) allows the CPC to apply where no specific provision is made in the regulations. Order XVIII Rule 15 of the CPC, which allows a successor judge to continue proceedings, was deemed applicable, supporting the continuity of the BIFR's proceedings despite changes in bench composition.

4. Estoppel and Acquiescence:

The respondents argued that the petitioners were estopped from raising objections about bench composition at a late stage since they did not object during the BIFR proceedings. The court observed that the petitioners did not raise this issue during the hearings on 24.11.2009 or 30.11.2009, indicating acquiescence. The court emphasized that objections should be raised at the earliest possible stage, and failure to do so could preclude raising them later.

5. Prejudice to Petitioners:

The court examined whether the petitioners suffered any prejudice due to the change in bench composition. It concluded that no prejudice was caused, as the petitioners were given full opportunities to present their case, submit written objections, and participate in hearings. The court found that the BIFR's process ensured that all parties had a chance to be heard, and the continuity of proceedings was maintained through written records and summaries.

In conclusion, the court rejected the preliminary objection regarding the bench composition and upheld the BIFR's decision-making process. The writ petitions were to be heard on merits subsequently.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates