Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (9) TMI 1287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case of Apollo International Ltd. where it was held that In the present case, the suit for recovery of money is a suit for recovery of money simplicitor. Counsel for the plaintiff does not press the interim applications under Order 38 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Accordingly, in the subject suit, there is no threat to the liquidation of the assets of the sick company and therefore no prior permission is required under Section 22 of SICA. Therefore, looking at it from any view of the matter that earlier a similar application was dismissed, the fact that petitioner had failed to comply with the repeated directions of the court to show that debt of the respondent/plaintiff was included in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by Section 22 of SICA is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raheja Universal Limited Vs. NRC Limited and Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 148. I have had an occasion to apply the ratio of this judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo International Ltd. Vs. Supriya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 195 (2012)) DLT 288 and paras 2 to 5 of the judgment in the case of Apollo International Ltd. (supra) read as under:- "2. The law is now however settled by a Division Bench judgment of three Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Raheja Universal Limited Vs. NRC Limited and Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 148. Paras 55, 58 and 77 to 81 of the said judgment are relevant and the same read as under:- "55. Despite these judgments and with an intent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the BIFR. 77. Section 22 of the Act of 1985 is very significant and of wide ramifications and application. More often than not, the jurisdiction of the BIFR is being invoked, necessitated by varied actions of third parties against the sick industrial company. The proceedings, taken by way of execution, distress or the like, may have the effect of destabilizing the finalization and/or implementation of the scheme of revival under consideration of the BIFR. It appears that, the Legislature intended to ensure that no impediments are created to obstruct the finalization of the scheme by the specialized body. To protect the industrial growth and to ensure revival, this preventive provision has been enacted. The provision has an overriding eff .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of any loan or advance granted to the industrial company shall lie, or be proceeded with further without the consent of the BIFR. In other words, a suit for recovery and/or for the stated kind of reliefs cannot lie or be proceeded further without the leave of the BIFR. Again, the intention is to protect the properties/assets of the sick industrial company, which is the subject matter of the scheme. 80. It is difficult to state with precision the principle that would uniformly apply to all the proceedings/suits falling under Section 22(1) of the Act of 1985. Firstly, it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case, it must satisfy the ingredients of Section 22(1) and fall under any of the various classes of proceedings sta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and 2 CPC. Accordingly, in the subject suit, there is no threat to the liquidation of the assets of the sick company and therefore no prior permission is required under Section 22 of SICA. 5. The suit now will have to proceed as no permission is required of BIFR/AAIFR under Section 22 of SICA. The defendant will now positively file the written statement within a period of six weeks from today failing which the right to file the written statement shall stand closed inasmuch as no written statement has been filed in this suit of the year 1999 till today i.e for about 13 years. Replication be filed within a period of two weeks of filing the written statement. Parties to file documents in their power and possession alongwith their pleadings. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates