DILIP KUMAR SETH,J.

( 1 ) THE moot question that arises in these two applications being G. A. No. 99 of 2001 and G. A. No. 100 of 2001 is as to whether the decree obtained against the defendant-applicant can be enforced or proceeded with or could be treated to be a valid decree, against the defendant-judgment-debtor by the plaintiff, in view of the fact that the claim that was sought to be enforced arises out of a guarantee given by the defendant against recovery of an advance made to a company against which proceedings under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the SICA) was initiated and referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the BIFR ). In order to appreciate the question first we may refer to the facts of the case in short, before we note the respective arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. The plaintiff-decree holder on February 9, 1996, allegedly advanced Rs. 75 lakhs as loan to one VHEL Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as VHEL) by way of an intercorporate deposit. One J. K. Rajgarhia (hereinafter referred to as JKR) executed a deed of gu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document