9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dustrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short "BIFR") under sections 16 and 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short "SICA"). Reply to the said application has also been filed. The application also sets out the consequential amendments required for disclosing the cause of action against defendant No. 3. 2. It is not necessary for me to go into the details and contents of the amendments sought since the defendants objection as to amendment not being permitted, are on account of the plaintiff s alleged failure to seek and obtain permission for institution of the suit against defendant No. 3 under section 22 of SICA, which contains a specific stipulation for the same. Accordingly, the facts essent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion had been issued to the defendants, but no reply was filed. ( iv ) Reference under sections 16 and 17 of SICA in respect of defendant No. 3 was made on 22nd August, 1994. As such, the bar under section 22 became applicable from the said date. Plaintiff has handed over in Court the summary record of proceedings before BIFR held on 29-12-1999. The said proceedings record that despite hearings from July 1995 to November 1996, no viable and agreed rehabilitation proposal could emerge. There was also failure to make payment in terms of one time settlement propounded and also within the time as granted by AAIFR in appeal. Defendant No. 3 had also preferred a writ petition being CWP No. 4088/1997, which was dismissed on 22-9-1999, following w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stituted on 18-5-1996, initially included defendant No. 3, though no relief was sought against it. He submits that by an amendment defendant No. 3 cannot now be made liable as the period of limitation for claiming relief against defendant No. 3 stands expired. Secondly, Mr. Gupta submits that it was always open for the plaintiff to invoke the provision under section 22 of the SICA, which could have enabled it to seek permission of BIFR for instituting a suit even though the proceedings were pending under sections 16 and 17 of SICA. In other words, he submits that section 22 of SICA itself has an enabling provision. Plaintiff having failed to avail of the same and having waited for the bar to be lifted by itself, cannot claim that the suit a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtinguished only with the order passed in the proceedings on 29-12-1999 when the Board finally put the nail in the coffin by holding that it was just and equitable that the company be wound up. That was the culmination and end of the protection under section 22 of SICA. The plaintiff thereupon moved the application for amendment on 30-1-2002. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that as I.A. No. 548/1998 was allowed only on 18-10-2001, the plaintiff immediately followed it up with the amendment application. 7. I may, however, even notice that section 15(1) of the Limitation Act, makes a provision for exclusion of time taken where the institution has been stayed by an injunction or order of the Court. In the present case the pendency of the referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
