The main legal principle established in the judgment is that interim relief can be granted to protect the property of a relief undertaking during the period it remains a relief undertaking, despite the temporary measures for preventing unemployment under the Bombay Relief Undertakings Act, 1958.

The company application seeks appointment of provisional liquidator of the Respondent company and an interim restraint order concerning the disposal of the company's assets pending such appointment.

2. The company is said to be indebted to the Applicant (who is the original Petitioner in the Company Petition) in the sum of over Rs.24.91 Crores. The Company has been referred to the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) cell and a consortium of lenders led by Central Bank of India has proposed a CDR scheme for the company. The Applicant herein is not part of CDR lenders, but its debt of Rs.24.91 Crores has been acknowledged in the debt profile of the company under the caption 'Non CDR lenders' in the report of the reference made to the CDR cell. It is the case of the Applicant that the company has not proposed any scheme for discharge of its outstanding claim. It is submitted that the company inter alia proposes to dispose of its assets in pursuance of the CDR scheme and also otherwise without making any payment to the Applicant and with a view to defeat the legitimate claim of the Applicant. It is submitted that the financials of the company present a dismal picture of the financial standing of the company and its ability to continue as a going concern. The Applicant has, in the premises, sought an order of provisional liquidator or at any rate, protective relief concerning the company's property and assets.

3. This court has held in a number of matters that mere existence of a CDR scheme, which is under implementation, is no answer by itself to a winding up petition. In any event, even in the face of a CDR scheme, though this Court may defer the admission of a winding up petition, nothing prevents this court from passing appropriate protective orders concerning the property of the company. In the premises, this Court, in its order dated 31 July 2015, noted the statement of the company's counsel that certain assets specified in the order shall not be dealt with by the company until further orders.

4. It is, however, submitted on behalf of the Respondent company that on 22 July 2015, it has been declared as a relief undertaking under the Bombay Relief Undertakings Act, 1958 (“B.R.U. Act”). It is submitted that in view of Sections 3 and 4 of that Act, on and from 22 July 2015, the Company Court would have no jurisdiction to either continue its order of protective relief qua the property of the company or pass any order or direction in that behalf. It is submitted by learned Counsel that the protection granted by the BRU Act is greater than the one afforded by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('S.I.C.A.'). Learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Binod Mills Co. Ltd. Ujjain (M.P.) Vs. Suresh Chandra Mahaveer Prasad Mantri, (1987) 3 SCC 99 and of this Court in Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. Vs. ICICI Ltd. (Debenture Trustees), 2002 Bom.C.R.608 in support of his submissions.

5. Sections 3 and 4 of the B.R.U. Act, which is an enactment making temporary provisions for industrial relations and other matters as a measure of preventing unemployment or of unemployment relief, provide as follows :-

“3. Declaration of relief undertaking. (1) If at any time it appears to the State Government necessary to do so, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that an industrial undertaking specified in the notification, whether started, acquired or otherwise taken over by the State Government, and carried on or proposed to be carried on by itself or under its authority, or to which any loan, guarantee or other financial assistance has been provided by the State Government shall, with effect from the date specified for the purpose in the notification, be conducted to serve as a measure of preventing unemployment or of unemployment relief and the undertaking shall accordingly be deemed to be a relief undertaking for the purposes of this Act.

(2) A notification under sub-s