9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a rehabilitation scheme under Section 18(1). The facts discussed in the present case clearly demonstrate that BIFR was to first explore the possibility of revival of the company by issuing the directions it did on 27.12.1999. The order no doubt refers to a package but that is not in the sense as understood in Section 18(1). It is not the case of the parties that draft rehabilitation scheme was ever circulated, considered, objected to, revised or finally sanctioned by BIFR. This Court cannot fault the DRAT s reasoning that there was no rehabilitation package pending for monitoring by the BIFR which acted as an embargo by Section 22 of SICA. The arguments with respect to the operation or application of third proviso to Section 15(1) of SICA, do not arise since the first essential condition for its applicability was pending reference or any sanctioned scheme subject to BIFR. Having concluded that no such reference or scheme existed, there was no question of operation or applicability of Section 15 in the circumstances of the case. The petition is unmerited and accordingly dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the company would exceed. Its accumulated losses primarily on account of reliefs and concessions available with the implementation of the settlement scheme. The Bench accordingly allowed the company to make its net worth exceed accumulated losses within a reasonable time as per the agreed package (copy enclosed) in terms of the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Act. 7. The Bench also made it clear that it would be for the company to approach State Govt. concerned for further exemption from Sales Tax and Income Tax Deptt. for seeking exemptions from the provisions of Income Tax Act. In the event of any liability arising on this account, it would be for the company/promoters to bring the requisite funds to meet the shortfall. 8. ICICI would monitor the repayment as per the settlement, on their own accord, along with secured creditors and others concerned and report to the Board if there were defaults in repayment of settled dues. The Company is directed to submit half-yearly progress report of the implementation of the agreed package beginning with 31.3.2000 and the Bench would take note of periodical review in regard to rehabilitation. In the event of non payment or non complianc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as RDDBFI Act ) were initiated by first respondent, being OA No.57/2008. It was mentioned here that first respondent company became the successor-in-interest insofar as the petitioner s debts are concerned with respect to the right, title and entitlements of two secured creditors i.e. Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) and Industrial Financial Corporation of India (IFCI). The secured creditor successor respondent company- initiated proceedings both under SARFAESI Act and RDDBFI Act which led to similar challenges and defences by the petitioner. 5. In these circumstances, the petitioner for the first time in pending proceedings before the DRT contended that since the rehabilitation scheme was operational and pending before BIFR, legal proceedings could not continue by virtue of Section 22 of SICA. This was done separately first before the BIFR and later in another application in the pending proceedings before DRT. The applications preferred before the DRT were rejected concurrently both by DRT and DRAT. 6. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel contends that given the manda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s net worth exceed the accumulated losses within a reasonable time, the Board, shall, by order in writing and subject to such restrictions or conditions as may be specified in the order, give such company as it may deem fit to make its net worth exceed the accumulated losses. (3) If the Board decides under sub-section (1) that it is not practicable for a sick industrial company to make its net worth exceed the accumulated losses within a reasonable time and that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest to adopt all or any of the measures specified in section 18 in relation to the said company it may, as soon as may be, by order in writing, direct any operating agency specified in the order to prepare, having regard to such guidelines as may be specified in the order, a scheme providing for such measures in relation to such company. (4) The Board may, (a) if any of the restrictions or conditions specified in an order made under sub-section (2) are not complied with by the company concerned, or if the company fails to revive in pursuance of the said order review such order on a reference in that behalf from any agency referred to in sub-section (2) of section 15 or on its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
