9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w. There was no occasion for the BIFR to extend the period beyond a period of 60 days without any request made in this regard by the petitioner. Thus, it is deemed that petitioner had consented to the DRS. W.P. dismissed. - WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 9152/2009 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2009 - A.K. PATHAK AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ. Janaranjan Das and Dwetaketu Mishra for the Petitioner. JUDGMENT A.K. Pathak, J. ‑ The p etitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 26 th February, 2009 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as AAIFR) as well as order dated 4 th July, 2007 passed by the Board for Industrial 85 Financial Reconstruction (herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d reliefs and concessions proposed qua the petitioner as contained in clauses No.( ii ), ( iv ) ( v ) and ( vi ) of paragraph 9.3 of DRS and added a condition of restoration of power supply. 7. Petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 4 th July, 2007 passed by the BIFR, filed an appeal before the AAIFR. Grievance of the petitioner was that BIFR did not grant time to the petitioner to file objections/suggestions to the DRS despite its request. BIFR wrongly recorded that the representative of the petitioner did not raise any objection to the DRS. DRS was received by the petitioner on 6 th April, 2007 and the same was under examination of the petitioner corporation. In the meanwhile, the petitioner received a letter dated 21 st May, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Petitioner had failed to place on record any document or application/communication to show that it had made a request for extension of time prior to the hearing conducted by the BIFR on 4 th July, 2007 when the impugned order was passed. Thus according to Section 19 (2) of SICA it will be deemed that the consent had been given by the petitioner. Since Section 19 (2) of SICA was a deeming provision it was immaterial for the BIFR to record any finding in the impugned order regarding "deemed consent". Certain reliefs and concessions were proposed vide clauses ( ii ), ( iv ) ( v ) and ( vi ) of para 9.3 of DRS qua the petitioner and the same were deleted by the BIFR even without filing any objections/suggestions by the petitioner. Direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t consent has been given. 12. It is apparent from the above that every person required to give financial assistance had to file his consent within a period of 60 days from the date of circulation of the scheme or within such further period, not exceeding sixty days, as may be allowed by the Board. It is further provided that if no such consent is received by the BIFR within sixty days or within extended period, it shall be deemed that consent had been given. In this case scheme was circulated by the BIFR to all the concerned persons including the petitioner, DRS was received by the petitioner on 6 th April, 2007. Thus, objections/suggestions, if any, should have been filed by the petitioner on or before 6 th June, 2007. However, petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
