9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assailing correctness, propriety, and legality of judgment and order passed by Single Bench regarding W.P. Nos. 1333/97 and 849/98. Interpretation of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 regarding staying of duress by Central Excise Department during BIFR proceedings. Analysis: The appellants contested the judgment and order of the Single Bench, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in Suptd. of Central Excise, Jammu v. J.K. Cigarettes was not considered. They emphasized Section 22(1) of SICA, stating that the duress for revenue collection cannot be stayed during BIFR proceedings. However, another party highlighted that under Section 22, duress should be stayed when BIFR is involved, and the matter was under consideration for scheme preparation. The challenge to this was dismissed by AAIFR. The Supreme Court's judgment mentioned was based on consent between parties, while the Single Judge pointed out Section 22(1) of SICA, emphasizing restrictions on winding up, execution, and distress against the company's properties during certain proceedings. The interpretation of Section 22(1) was crucial, particularly regarding the term "distress" being disconnected from other actions against the company. The argument that distress could not be touched by BIFR or AAIFR under Section 22 was refuted, as the word must be considered independently. The judgments challenged were deemed well-reasoned by the Single Judge, addressing all relevant facts. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with costs, as no grounds were found to set aside the judgments and orders. The decision maintained that the appeals were not deserving of being allowed based on the provided arguments and legal analysis.
|
