Budihal R.B., J.

These applications are filed by the applicants under Rule 6 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.

2. C.A. No. 54 of 2016 is filed by the applicants praying the Court to set aside the judgment dated 22-12-2003 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No. 872 of 1999, which is produced at Annexure-C, and also to set-aside the orders dated 27-5-2015 and 24-6-2015 passed by respondent no. 2 in DCP No. 3096 of O.A. No. 872 of 1999 produced at Annexure-F, as they are nonest, illegal and arbitrary.

3. C.A. No. 55 of 2016 is filed by the applicants to stay the execution/recovery proceedings in DCP No. 3096 of O.A. No. 872 of 1999 pending before the respondent no. 2.

4. Looking to averments made in both these applications, the said averments are one and the same, therefore, both these applications are taken together to dispose of them by this common order.

5. The facts in brief as pleaded by the applicants are that, M/s. Cauvery Papers Limited (In Liqn.) i.e., respondent no. 1 herein had borrowed a term loan of Rs. 305 Lakhs from IDBI, IFCI and ICICI on 8-9-1982 and further loans of Rs. 28.80 Lakhs and Rs. 34 Lakhs on 27-3-1985 and 9-11-1987 respectively, for its project at Satyagala Village, Mysore District, for manufacture of M.G. Kraft and coloured poster papers. The respondent-company (In Liqn.) was declared as a Sick Industrial Company within the meaning of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR' for short) on 26-10-1988 and the document in this regard is produced at Annexure-A.

6. The further facts that a reference under Section 15(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA' for short) of the respondent-company (In Liqn.) was made to the BIFR. The BIFR on 26-10-1988, declared the respondent-company as sick despite a rehabilitation scheme sanctioned by BIFR during August 1990, failed to revive the respondent-company (In Liqn.). It appears that the ICICI Bank and respondent no. 4-Bank (IFCI) i.e., the operating agency banks declined to implement the scheme of rehabilitation. Respondent-company (In Liqn.) preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'AAIFR' for short) against the aforesaid order passed by the 'BIFR', however the order passed by the BIFR was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 10-9-1997. The BIFR finally passed an order dated 21-4-1997 recommending for winding-up of respondent-company (In Liqn.) and thereafter forwarded the matter to this Court, which is numbered as Co. P. No. 67 of 1997 before this Court, against tire respondent-company (In Liqn.) on 13-5-1997. This Court was pleased to pass an order for winding-up of the respondent-company (In Liqn.) vide its order dated 9-3-2000 and directed the Official Liquidator to take control of the assets and liabilities of the respondent-company (In Liqn.). The respondent-company was declared sick on 26-10-1988 by the BIFR and that, Section 22 of SICA operates immediately upon such declaration and was in force up to the presentation of the instant petition on 13-5-1997 and hence all the other legal proceedings are liable to be suspended.

Section 22 of the SICA, 1985, provides for suspension of legal proceedings, contracts etc.

Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, provides for the cases in which company may be wound-up by the Tribunal.

Section 438 of the Companies Act, 1956, provides for the jurisdiction of the High Courts to pass orders at anytime and at any stage and either on an application of or without application from any of the parties to the proceedings.

Respondent 2-Recovery Officer (N)-DRT and the DRT despite being notified by the Official Liquidator representing respondent-company, failed to adhere to Section 441(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. It is well-settled law that once