JUDGMENT

G.P. Bharucha, J.-The facts that we state relate to the case of Tata Davy Limited (C.A. No. 1354/91). They are substantially similar to the facts of the other appeals.

2. The said appellant was, on 9th February, 1988, declared a sick company within the meaning of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (now referred to as "the Central Act"). On a reference under Section 15 of the Central Act made on 23rd December, 1989, an inquiry under Section 16 was made a scheme was sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (now referred to as "the Board") for the said appellant s benefit and it was at the relevant time under implementation.

3. For the Assessment Years 1983-84 and 1984-85 the said appellant was in arrears of sales tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (now referred to as "the State Act"). Recovery of the said arrears was sought to be made by attachment of the said appellant s property under the provisions of Section 13-A of the State Act. The High Court of Orissa was considering the question whether steps to recover sales tax dues under Section 13-A of the State Act were in the nature of proceedings by way of execution, distress or the like contemplated by Section 22(1) of the Central Act in a writ petition filed by M/s. Aluminium Industries Ltd. (the appellant in the other appeals) which was, as aforestated, in a position similar to that of the said appellant. The said appellant intervened in the writ petition and was heard.

4. The High Court said in its judgment on the writ petition that the question before it was whether the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Central Act overrode the provisions of Section 13-A of the State Act. It held that there was no irreconciliable conflict between the two provisions as they operated in separate and distinct fields and, therefore, both were capable of being obeyed. The result was that Section 22(1) of the Central Act "would not protect the properties of industrial companies from being proceeded against in exercise of the power under Section 13-A of the State Act".

5. Very soon after the High Court s judgment this Court decided the case of Gram Panchayat and Anr. v. Shri Vallabh Glass Works Limited & Ors.1, to which we shall make reference. The appellants applied to the High Court to review its decision in the light of the Vallabh Glass Works judgment. The High Court expressed its inability to do so.

Hence, these appeals.

6. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy, Section 22(1) of the Central Act needs to be set down.

"22. Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc.- (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under Section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under Section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board, or as the case may be, the Appellate Authority."

7. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the judgment in Vallabh Glass Works. Vallabh Glass Works had been declared a sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Central Act. The appellant Gram Panchayat initiated coercive proceedings under Section 129 of the Bomba