9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party No. 1 - Company s application for stay of further proceedings of the said Money Suit in accordance with the provisions of section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (the 1985 Act for short). The plaintiff-petitioner instituted the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 from the opposite party No. 1 - Company. The suit was filed in the year 1992 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Chinsurah, Hooghly claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000. The Opposite party No. 1 - Company filed a written state- ment denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the plaint of the petitioner s suit as mentioned above. The defendant No. 1 - Company also filed another suit on July ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the said Company. According to the petitioner the Company does not come within the purview of section 22(1) of the 1985 Act. 7. The learned Assistant District Judge, however, held that since the Company has been declared a Sick Industry the further proceedings in the present suit for recovery of money should be stayed under the provisions of section 22 of the 1985 Act and accordingly ordered such stay till the finalisation of the Scheme by the Board. 8. Challenging the above order the plaintiff/appellant has filed the present revision application, inter alia, on the grounds that the defendant-Company has regained its financial position and manufacturing works have been proceeding in full swing and as such the said Company does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apply to all the suits filed or proceeded with after the amendment in section 22(1) came into force. 11. Referring to the above decision Mr. Dasgupta submits that in view of the aforesaid amendment and having regard to the present condition of opposite party No. 1 - Company there should be no stay of proceedings of the suit as ordered by the learned Assistant District Judge. 12. Mr. Roy Chowdhury refers to certain provisions of section 3(1)( o ) of the 1985 Act and also cites the following decisions in support of his contention that stay of the proceedings of the Money Suit filed by the petitioner as ordered by the trial Court should continue: 1. Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial Investment Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law no proceedings for the winding-up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof.....shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority." 15. From a reading of the aforesaid section it is clear that before the introduction of the amendment on 1-2-1994 suits for recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of the loans or advan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
