9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revival package by avoiding further delay. If the BIFR does not find the company's proposal worthy, it would immediately have before if other proposals that may be considered and found suitable. It has only avoided the possible delay that would have occasioned in the event the company's proposal was to be rejected. The company's objection to this betrays the promoters' motive in lingering the process, which cannot be condoned. In fine, the appellate authority's order of March 19, 2009, is set aside and the BIFR's order of September 2, 2008, is revived. The appearing parties submit that the BIFR has convened a meeting relating to the company on July 7, 2008. The BIFR should complete the exercise that it has embarked upon expeditiously a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the company be wound up. Several orders passed in the proceedings including one by the appellate authority were carried in W. P. No. 8237 (W) of 2006 and W. P. No. 7220 (W) of 2007 before this court which culminated in an order of June 27, 2008 ( Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd. Sangrami Shramik Union v. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction [2009] 149 Comp. Cas. 555). The order of the learned single judge of this court set aside an order of July 20, 2005, passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAFIR) and an order dated December 31, 2002, passed by the BIFR. The BIFR was directed to reconsider "the question of revival of the company". For such purpose, the order stipulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction [2009] 149 Comp. Cas. 555). The appellate authority dwelt at length on the scope of the expression "all parties" appearing in the order of June 27, 2009 and ultimately concluded that the BIFR had transgressed its authority in acting contrary to the direction of this court and in taking note of the history of the case that had been rendered irrelevant by virtue of the order dated June 27, 2008. The appeal succeeded and the order of the BIFR was set aside. The matter was thereafter remanded to the Board for fresh consideration. 6. The AAIFR order of March 19, 2009, is under challenge here. The writ petitioners say that there was no occasion for the appellate authority to interfere with the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch interpretation does not appear to be reasonable as nothing in the order dated June 27, 2008 ( Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd. Sangrami Shramik Union v. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction [2009] 149 Comp. Cas. 555), would lend to such a view. The operative portion of such order may be noticed in its entirety (page 562) : "For these reasons, I dispose of the writ petitions ordering as follows. The orders of the AAIFR dated July 20, 2005 and the BIFR dated December 31, 2002, are hereby set aside. The BIFR is directed to reconsider the question of revival of the company. For the purpose it shall give all parties reasonable opportunities to submit their proposals and schemes, and after making a detailed inqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, 2008, in the manner that it has acted imprudently and in error of jurisdiction. 10. The BIFR noticed that revival schemes had been furnished before it by both the promoters of the company (in the name of the company) and by another of Bajaj Jute and Machinery P. Ltd. The directions contained in the BIFR order recognised that the company's revival scheme would also be considered. Though there is no specific reference to the scheme that was already on record and had been submitted by Bajaj Jute and Machinery P. Ltd., the first direction contained in the BIFR of September 2, 2008, would take in the scheme furnished by Bajaj Jute and Machinery P. Ltd., before the Board. 11. It is true that the order dated June 27, 2008, in a sense, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BIFR is authorised to be represented. It was the BIFR's prerogative to be the sole arbiter of such dispute. The BIFR would do well to revisit the position relating to this aspect in its order of December 18, 2008 and adjudicate upon the locus standi of the petitioners herein to represent the workers. 13. The company has contended that the order of June 27, 2008, implied that the BIFR had to restrict itself to the process envisaged under section 17 of the said Act and not to invoke its authority under section 18 of the Act to change the management. There is nothing in the order of June 27, 2008, to sustain such interpretation. Further, the BIFR has not directed a change in management. The BIFR has also indicated that the company's propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
