9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said application in accordance with law. The Court therefore refrains from issuing any direction or making any observation on the plea urged by PPL in the present petition and leaves it open to the PPL to urge all the pleas raised here vis- -vis the sanctioned Scheme passed in BIFR Case No.238 of 2003 before the NCLT. It must be noted here that in the present case, on 18th December, 2019, an interim order was passed to the effect that no coercive action would be taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the notice of assessment which had been permitted to be proceeded with by the Court on 8th December, 2014 with the direction that no final order would be passed in those proceedings. The net effect is that there is an interim protection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is to approach the Board/Tribunal itself for implementation of its order. However, since the prayer of the petitioner at this stage is only limited to give a direction to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner, we direct that decision on the representation of the petitioner be taken by Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4. As can be seen that there were two observations in this Court s previous order: one was that the Petitioner s remedy against the disinclination of the Opposite Parties-State Authorities to act on the Scheme prepared and sanctioned by the BIFR under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA) was to go befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace is that since the year 2011 the net-worth of PPL turned positive and it asked that it be discharged from the purview of the Scheme. This is reflected in an order dated 6th September, 2011 passed by the BIFR. In para 13.4 of the said order dated 6th September, 2011, the BIFR noted that the PPL had ceased to be a sick industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the SICA and discharged the PPL from the purview of Scheme under the SICA. The BIFR issued further directions including discharging the Special Director appointed by the BIFR on PPL s Board of Directors. 9. Since this Court had already taken a view in the order dated 15th January, 2014 that PPL should go before the BIFR for all incidental or ancillary relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
