9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yet been reconstituted and hence, this writ. 2. It is not necessary for this Court to burden this judgment by taking note of entire factual aspect of the case. It is for the reason that this court is not exercising the powers of the original authority under the Act (SICA) nor is acting as an appellate authority. In other words, this Court has to examine the issue keeping in view the jurisdictional constraints put on the writ court while hearing the writ petitions in such cases. 3. Petitioner is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of certain special type of steel items. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has suffered huge financial losses and approached to BIFR under section 15 of SICA for claimin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rne by the OA and would subsequently be reimbursed by the company. ( ii )The company would furnish to the OA the details of its assets as on 31-3-2003 along with their book value and market price as on a recent date. The company would also submit details of its liabilities as on 31-3-2003. ( iii )The OA would prepare a profile of the company based on the details available with it, highlighting the strengths of the company that could be of interest to the prospective buyers and would also prepare a list of the inventory and make the same available to the interested bidders. ( iv )The OA would submit a report to the Board with a copy to the company on the expiry of 12 weeks, but not later than 31-8-2003 along with the details of the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed proposal in the form of revival of the petitioner company but the same was not at all considered by the learned members of B.I.F.R. It was thus, submitted that non consideration of the revised proposal though viable for the revival of the company vitiates the impugned directions. It is submitted that this has caused immense prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. I find no substance in this submission because in my view, the submission is factually incorrect and contrary to the record. 6. In para 3 of the impugned order, learned members of B.I.F.R. has in clear terms examined revised proposal of the petitioner company with a view to find out, as to whether it is viable, or not ? While rejecting the proposal and finding it to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r unsecured creditors ? Indeed, once the company applies to the Board for being declared as a Sick Industrial Company under the provisions of SICA then it is equally important to see the interest of creditors who have invested money in the company. In other words, the interest of secured creditors cannot be ignored. Rather it has to be given due weightage while considering any proposal submitted by the company. 8. It is not in dispute that in this case none of creditors whose huge investment is at stake in petitioner s company have agreed to any of the revised proposal submitted by the petitioner. Rather they have objected to the same. 9. One of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that petitioner being a prosper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
