9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 26-4-1995 rule of the Court and for passing money decree in terms thereof. Petitioner filed objections against the award under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 3. While the objections filed by the petitioner against the award were pending, petitioner filed a reference before respondent No. 2, (BIFR) in terms of section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA ) which was registered as BIFR Case No. 501/1996. The respondent No. 3 opposed the reference and also filed a representation before BIFR seeking permission to continue proceedings against the petitioner as the petitioner had objected to the continuance of the suit on the ground that no permission was obtained by the respondent No. 3 from BIFR under section 22(1) and had sought suspension of suit proceedings. On consideration of the representation of the respondent No. 3, BIFR observed in its order dated 10th February, 1998 that the award in favour of respondent No. 3 shall be provided for in the scheme. 4. The respondent No. 3 also filed an application seeking permission from respondent No. 2 to pursue proceedings of the said suit. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in favour of respondent No. 3, an execution petition in Delhi High Court being Execution Case No. 200/2002 seeking attachment of the properties of petitioner to execute decree dated 16-5-2002 was filed on 3rd September, 2002. The petitioner objected to the execution petition on the ground that no permission had been granted by respondent No. 2, BIFR, for institution and continuation of the execution proceedings and the permission granted on 31-8-1998 was only to pursue respondent No. 3 s suit (1519-A/95) for making award the rule of the Court and a decree in terms thereof in High Court. 7. On 31-10-2002, respondent No. 2, BIFR passed a detailed order dated 31-10-2002 which reads : "8. The representative of Walchand Industries Limited (WIL) Shri N. Venkatachalam stated that their dues were for Rs. 5.73 crores. He stated that they had sent the copy of the application under section 22(1) of the Act to the company and added that the company had gone in for appeal. He added that there was no stay from the Court in the matter but BIFR s permission was required. It was noted that since they had already got the decree, therefore, the company had no protection insofar as section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised the issue before the executing Court of this Court and again reiterated that the execution of the decree could not proceed without obtaining the prior permission under section 22(1) of the SICA. 12. The learned Single Judge after perusal of the order dated 28-1-2004 of BIFR held in its order dated 26-4-2004 that since permission had already been granted by BIFR, there was no bar to proceed against petitioner/judgment-debtor, for recovery of decretal amount and, therefore, petitioner was directed to deposit the principal amount of Rs. 5.53 crores under the decree within four weeks from 26-4-2004. The learned Single Judge held : "I have perused the said order very carefully. In my considered opinion, the BIFR has granted permission to decree holder to proceed against the judgment-debtor in the execution case also. It is clearly observed in paragraph 27 thereof that permission under section 22(1) of the Act was granted to the decree-holder for the execution of the decree. Since permission is already granted by the BIFR, in that view of the matter there is no bar to proceed against the judgment-debtor for recovery of the amount as sought to be done by the decree-holder by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even third respondent had also not asked for a permission for execution of the decree in its Suit No. 1519-A/95 and, therefore, what was granted by the BIFR vide order dated 31-8-1998 was only a permission to proceed with the suit and not with the execution of the decree. 16. We firstly find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the AAIFR in the facts and circumstances of the case that the BIFR had granted permission for the execution of decree also. Because once the BIFR itself, which was the only right and competent forum to grant the requisite permission, had clarified that it had granted permission for both proceedings with the suit and the execution proceedings, there was no reason and scope to question this, unless it was shown that the clarification made by the BIFR was perverse or contrary to any provision of law. The statute after all vests the power to grant permission in the BIFR and if the Board clarifies that the permission was covering both the stages, the matter should end at that. And to top it all, when this view had been affirmed by learned Single Judge of this Court and had been left intact even in an appeal taken against his order, the appellate a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oans or advance granted to the industrial company] shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the appellate authority." A plain reading of the provisions of this section would show that it does not provide for or prescribe any particular mode of granting a permission and, therefore, it cannot be said that it envisaged one permission for suit proceedings and the other for execution proceedings. 19. It is true that the amendment made in this provision in 1994 added and included the suits for recovery and their enforcement also but that by itself would not suggest that the permission granting authority (BIFR or AAIFR) was to pass one order for filing of the suit and the other for execution proceedings. There is also no bar provided in this section for passing any composite order by the two forums granting permission both for filing of the suit and execution of the decree. 20. It also required to be noted that permission in the present case was granted by BIFR in 1998 after the amendment carried out in section 22 which suggests that the BIFR was in know and conscious of the import of the amendment and yet it had clarif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
