9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p the company under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (hereinafter referred to as the SICA) and further directed that the opinion be forwarded to the concerned High Court for necessary action in accordance with law. The company was also restrained under section 22(b) of SICA, from disposing of or alienating any of its fixed assets and current assets without specific prior approval of the BIFR and the charge holders until the appointment of an Official Liquidator by the concerned High Court. 2. In the order challenged in appeal, dated 4 March, 2004, the BIFR noted that subsequent to the order dated 2 January, 2002, giving the last opportunity to the promoters, the company had not submitted any rehabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obligations and that the company as a result thereof was not likely to become viable in future and that it was just, equitable and in public interest that the company should be wound up under section 20(1) of the Act. The bench, therefore, confirmed its earlier prima facie opinion formed vide order dated 2.1.2002 to wind up the company in terms of section 20(1) of the Act. It was also directed that this opinion be forwarded to the concerned High Court along with copies of all earlier orders/proceedings in the case for further necessary action according to law. 10. The bench further directed in terms of clause (b ) of section 22A of the Act that the company should not dispose of or alienate in any other way any of its fixed assets and curr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll apply. (2) Any notice or other document required to be served on or delivered to a company may be sent to the chairman, managing director, secretary, manager or other principal officer of the company at the registered office of the company, by registered post or by leaving it at its registered office. (3) Every notice or other document required to be served on the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, shall be addressed and sent to the secretary of the appropriate Ministry or Department and shall be served in the manner specified in sub-regulation (1) to this regulation. 5. Section 25 of the SICA reads as follows: 25. Appeal. - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Board made under this Act may, withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll concerned including the appellant by the Board on 24.3.2004 and the appellant ought to have received the same in the normal course shortly after 24.3.2004 which can be presumed from the provision under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and Illustration (f) thereof. 7. On the basis of the above reasoning, the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puwada Venkatesara Rao v Chidamna Venkata Ramana (1976) 2 SCC 409. The relevant position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment reads as follows: 10. The two decisions are reconcilable. The Calcutta High Court applied a rebuttable p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in Jagat Ram Khullar and another v Battu Mal AIR 1976 Del 111. The relevant portion relied upon, reads as follows: 8. What then is the impact of the oral testimony of the tenant denying the tender and the refusal to accept delivery on the presumption of service that thus arose This question, my mind, must be answered in favour of the tenant. It is well settled that the presumption of fact under section 114 of the Evidence Act, as indeed, the presumption of law under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, are not irrebuttable but, on the contrary, are rebuttable. This is so because neither of the two presumptions are conclusive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpiry of 60 days, the maximum period prescribed for preferring an appeal. In these circumstances, whether or not and when the certified copy was received by the petitioner pales into insignificance. The petitioner's plea if accepted would give an ingenious method of extension of statutorily prescribed period of limitation merely by applying for a certified copy beyond the expiry of the period of limitation and then computing the period of limitation from the date when the certified copy, belatedly applied for is received. 11. In our view the petitioner's case set up in the writ petition cannot be sustained as the petitioner has only stated that the order dated 4 March, 2004, was not received by it in normal course by the petitioner. In our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
