9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Reconstruction ('BIFR') under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short). The Board is considering the proposal for revival. When the revival proposals were under the consideration of BIFR some of the depositors who deposited money with the appellant-company filed applications before the CLB under section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956. The CLB allowed the applications of the depositors holding that the provisions of section 22 are not attracted to the proceedings under section 58A(9) of the Companies Act. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the writ petition. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority." [Emphasis supplied] 6. The only facet of section 22(1) of the Act that can be said to be of some relevance to the present appeal is the relief for recovery of money that is prohibited under the Act in respect of a company under revival by the BIFR. The question is whether the claim for return of deposit could be termed as 'suit for recovery of money' against the company. If the answer is in the affirmative then the appellant-company would succeed and not otherwise. 7. The term 'deposit' has been defined by the Explanation to section 58A as a deposit of money with a company including an amount borrowed by it but excluding such categories of amount as may be prescribed in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions contained in section 22(1) do not lend themselves to any liberal interpretation. The said provisions must be interpreted in a limited sense and cannot be said to cover situations where there really is no element of execution, distress or the like against any property owned by the industrial company. Interpreting the term "no suit for recovery of money" thus, we find that it certainly would not cover a simple claim made by depositors for the return of their deposits after maturity. As held by the apex court in the decision, supra, it is a sum kept with the company by the depositors in trust for return after maturity. The learned single judge has no proper and detailed appreciation of the matter has come to the correct conclusion. The r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
