9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions) Act (SICA), 1985, has not been obtained by the defendants in respect of the counter-claim filed by it. 2. In the suit, the plaintiff has sought recovery of Rs.90, 34,079.73ps from the defendants. On the other hand a counter-claim for recovery of Rs.5.22 lacs has been filed by the defendants against the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that its goods worth Rs.1, 82,14,358/- were supplied to the defendant from time to time after giving credit for the payments made by it, a principal sum of Rs. 63. 27. 471. 11 remained due to it. The plaintiff has claimed the aforesaid amount with interest @ 20% per annum, thereby directing a total sum of Rs. 90, 34, 079.73. The case of the defendant on the other hand is that taking into accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsent of the Board or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be. 5. The learned counsel for the defendants has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Ors v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals and Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 649. There, the Court inter alia held as under: "Under the statute, the BIFR is to consider in what way various preventive or remedial measures should be afforded to a sick industrial company. In that behalf, BIFR is enabled to frame and appropriate scheme. To enable the BIFR to do so, certain preliminaries are required to be followed. It starts with the reference to be made by the Board of Directors of the sick company. The BIFR is directed to make appropriate inquiry as provided in Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ress or the like or other similar proceedings against the company without the consent of the Board or, as the case may, the appellate authority. The language of Section 22 of the Act is certainly wide. But, in the totality of the circumstances, the safeguard is only against the impediment that is likely to be caused in the implementation of the scheme. If that be so, only the liability or amounts covered by the scheme will be taken in, by Section 22 of the Act, So, we are of the view that though the language of Section 22 of the Act is of wide import regarding suspension of legal proceedings from the moment an inquiry is started, till after the implementation of the scheme or the disposal of an appeal under Section 25 of the Act, it will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the defendants, they are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.90,34,079.73ps from them. Since the plaintiff does not admit the counterclaim, the defendants are entitled to an adjudication with respect to their claim and admittedly that adjudication cannot be done by BIFR. For this reason alone, the counterclaim is not liable to be stayed. Admittedly, the amount of adjustment sought by the defendants and that of counter-claim does not find inclusion in the liabilities admitted by the plaintiff before BIFR. The defendants have not approached BIFR and the plaintiff does not admit the claim set up by them. The Scheme by BIFR is yet to be framed. Since the claim of the defendants is not the subject matter of the proceedings before BIFR, the Sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
