2002 (4) TMI 867

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce 1994-95 to 1996-97. 2. The contention of Sri Manish Goyal learned counsel for petitioner is that there is automatic suspension of the proceedings under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") and as such complying with the said section 22, the notice being in the nature of a distress proceeding, the notice should be stayed. It is, however, on record that all stages of inquiry and other proceedings before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction are over and learned counsel for petitioner also cannot dispute that the matter has been sent to the High Court under the relevant provisions of the said Act and winding up proceeding is pending under sectio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ub-section (3), the Board may cause to be sold the assets of the sick industrial company in such manner as it may deem fit and forward the sale proceeds to the High Court for orders for distribution in accordance with the provisions of section 529A, and other provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)." 3. The fact remains that proceedings for winding up of the sick industrial company under section 20 is pending in Delhi High Court. That itself shows that all proceedings by way of inquiry or otherwise were already concluded in the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The first and foremost contention of Mr. Goyal is that there is automatic suspension under section 22 of the Act cannot have any application in the pres .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pany to approach appropriate Court where the winding up proceeding is pending, if the High Court deems fit and proper to revive the company. The contention of Mr. Goyal on this aspect of the matter, therefore, cannot be accepted. Mr. Goyal has also relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in the case of J.M. Malhotra v. Union of India [1997] 89 Comp. Cas. 600. The principle relied upon in the said decision cannot be disputed, although, in our view the same does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the aforesaid decision the matter came up for consideration before the Madras High Court under section 20 for winding up. As we have already noted, it is open to the winding up Court to consider all aspects of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X