9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order impugned the said Board dismissed the reference under sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 as time-barred. 3. On September 27, 1999 the audited accounts of the company for the financial year 1999-2000 were adopted at the annual general meeting of the company. 4. On May 17, 2000 the directors of the company in the board meeting, inter alia, resolved, after considering the audited accounts of the company, that a reference under sub-section (1) of section 15 of the said Act of 1985 should be made to the said Board. 5. Consequently, on June 28, 2000 the company made a reference to the said Board, which was received by the said Board on July 10, 2000. The said refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pulated period. It was threatened that if no satisfactory reply would be received within fifteen days, the Board would decide further in the matter in accordance with section 33 of the said Act of 1985. 8. On July 10, 2001, the company submitted its explanation, in reply to the said show-cause notice, stating that due to lack of knowledge and experience of the promoters/company, the reference could not be filed within the stipulated period of time. The company sought for condonation of delay in making the reference. It was stated, further, that the delay in making the reference was unintentional and was due to ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject. 9. On December 20, 2002 again a show-cause notice was issued by the Registra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that the Board is wrong in dismissing the reference as time-barred inasmuch as the Board misconstrued the provisions of the said Act of 1985. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the Board may resort to the provisions of section 33 of the said Act of 1985 for taking penal actions for not filing the reference within the stipulated period of time, but the reference cannot be dismissed as incompetent. 14. Mr. Dhandhania, learned advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 5, on the contrary, supports the order of the Board and submits that as the reference was not filed within the stipulated period of time, the Board was right in rejecting the reference. Mr. Dhandhania submits that when the statute has prescribed a specific period for making t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 15, the Central Government or the Reserve Bank or a State Government or a public financial institution or a State level institution or a scheduled bank may, if it has sufficient reasons to believe that any industrial company has become, for the purposes of the said Act of 1985, a sick industrial company makes a reference in respect of such company to the Board. 18. Sub-section (1) of section 33 of the said Act contemplates that whoever violates the provisions of the said Act or any scheme, or any order of the Board, or the Appellate Authority and whoever makes a false statement or gives false evidence to the Board or the Appellate Authority, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oard and forward copies of such reference to the transferor and the transferee. Such reference was to be made within a period of two months from the date of lodgement of transfer application. The Company Law Board, in the aforesaid case, held that reference, which was not made to the Company Law Board within the stipulated period of two months from the date of lodgement of transfer application, was barred by limitation. 22. Suhas Chandra Sen, J., in the aforesaid unreported decision, held as under: "In my view, the Company Law Board fell into an error in holding that some of the References were barred by limitation. Sub-section (4) of section 22A has imposed a time limit within which a company has to do any one of the three things men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time limit has been prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 15 of the said Act of 1985 to ensure that the board of directors of such company acts speedily. If there has been any delay, the directors/the company may be penalised, but the reference cannot be rejected as time-barred. The Board does not become powerless to determine measures, which shall be adopted in respect of a sick industrial company even if the reference is made to the Board after the stipulated period of time. The statute does not prescribe rejection of a reference as time-barred. The Court will, also, not readily read words, which are not there and introduction of which will restrict the rights of persons for whose benefit the statute is intended. I, accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
