ORDER : - By means of this chamber summons taken out by the plaintiffs it is prayed that the order passed by this Court on 13-3-1995 be implemented by ordering and directing the Court Receiver for its execution.

2. The Plaintiffs Industrial Development Bank of India, the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd., and the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd., filed a suit for recovery of amount of over Rs. 10 crores against the defendants Moradabad Syntex Ltd., and others before this Court on 28-10-1994. In the said suit, notice of motion was taken out by the plaintiffs praying therein inter all a that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay or some other fit and proper person be appointed Receiver of immovable properties described in Exhibit A annexed to the notice of motion and movable properties and current assets described in Exhibit B and C to the notice of motion. On 14-12-1994, this Court passed ad-interim order directing that the defendant No. 1 namely Moradabad Syntex Ltd., shall not dispose of suit immovable properties. The order dated 14-12-1994 was challenged in appeal and on 13-3-1995 the order dated 14-12-1994 was modified by the Division Bench on the basis of the minutes of the order tendered by the counsel and the Court Receiver was continued to be appointed ad-interim receiver in terms of immovable properties described in Exhibit A annexed to the notice of motion and the current assets described in Exhibit C except movable properties described in Exhibit B.

3. On 23-1-1996 the notice of motion was adjourned sine die and it was ordered by this Court that the ad-interim order of injunction granted on 14-12-1994 shall continue to operate during the pendency of the suit. The grievance of the applicants/plaintiffs is that the efforts of the Court Receiver in executing the order dated 13-3-1995 could not materialise because of the defendants. The applicants state that the Court Receiver fixed 25-4-1995 to execute the order dated 13-3-1995 but it was not able to execute the same. In this fact situation the applicants pray for suitable directions to the Court Receiver for execution of the order dated 13-3-1995.

4. An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to the present chamber summons and it is stated that the defendant No. 1 Moradabad Syntex Ltd., an industrial company, on 28-3-1995 made a reference to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and an inquiry into the working of the industrial company, defendant No. 1 was held. The BIFR on 16-8-1995 reached prima facie conclusion that the company be wound up. The BIFR rejected the application made by Industrial Development Bank of India 1st plaintiff for consent for taking physical possession of the properties by the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay. Ultimately the BIFR by an order dated 26-6-1996 passed final order recommending winding up of defendant No. 1 company and directed that copy of its opinion be sent to the concerned High Court for action according to law. The order passed by the BIFR on 26-6-1996 was carried in appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) and the appellate authority by its order dated 25-2-1997 confirmed the order of winding up proposed by BIFR. It is stated in the affidavit in reply that pursuant to the orders passed by BIFR and AAIFR the winding up petition being Petition No. 72 of 1997 has been filed before the Delhi High Court and is pending. In the background of the aforesaid facts the chamber summons is contested principally on four grounds :-

(1) that the present chamber summons was taken out on 31-10-1996 at the time when appeal under Section 25 of SICA relating to the 1st defendant company was pending and in view of embargo put by Section 22(1) of SICA, the filing of the application by way of chamber summons wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document