SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD. : Plaintiff
VERSUS
SUPRIYA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. : Defendant
CS (OS) 2815/1999
Decided On : 16th October, 2012

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate.
Mr. H.C. Dhall, Advocate for defendant No.1.
Mr. Sanjeev Kakra, Advocate with Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for defendant No.2.

Section 22 of SICA requires prior permission of BIFR/AAIFR for suits causing liquidation of assets of a sick company to proceed.

Headnote:

SICK COMPANY - SUIT PROCEEDINGS - SICA - Section 22 of SICA

Fact of the Case:

The suit was not being proceeded with due to the defendant-company being a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). The plaintiff was required to take prior permission of BIFR/AAIFR before continuing with the suit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suit for recovery of money did not pose a threat to the liquidation of the assets of the sick company, and therefore no prior permission was required under Section 22 of SICA. The defendant was directed to file the written statement, and the suit was allowed to proceed.

Issues: The main issue was whether prior permission of BIFR/AAIFR was required under Section 22 of SICA for the suit to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raheja Universal Limited Vs. NRC Limited and Ors. to interpret Section 22 of SICA. It emphasized that only suits for recovery causing liquidation of assets of a sick company would be hit by the bar of Section 22 of SICA.

Final Decision: The suit was allowed to proceed without the requirement of prior permission from BIFR/AAIFR under Section 22 of SICA.

JUDGMENT

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This suit was not being proceeded with inasmuch as the defendant-company was said to have become a sick company and proceedings were pending under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). In terms of Section 22 of SICA, prima facie the plaintiff had to take prior permission of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR)/Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) before continuing with the suit.

2. The law is now however settled by a Division Bench judgment of three Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Raheja Universal Limited Vs. NRC Limited and Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 148. Paras 55, 58 and 77 to 81 of the said judgment are relevant and the same read as under:-

“55. Despite these judgments and with an intention to clarify the law, we would state that the matters which are connected with the sanctioning and implementation of the scheme right from the date on which it is presented or the date from which the scheme is made effective, whichever is earlier, would be the matters which squarely fall within the ambit and scope of Section 22 of the Act of 1989 subject to their satisfying the ingredients stated under that provision. This would include the proceedings before the civil court, revenue authorities and/or any other competent forum in the form of execution or distress in relation to recovery of amount by sale or otherwise of the assets of the sick industrial company. It is difficult for us to hold that merely because a demand by a creditor had not been made a part of the scheme, pre or post-sanctioning of the same for that reason alone, it would fall outside the ambit of protection of Section 22 of the Act of 1985.

58. Section 22 is the reservoir of the statutory powers empowering the BIFR to determine a scheme, right from its presentation till its complete implementation in accordance with law, free of interjections and interference from other judicial processes. Section 22(1) deals with the execution, distress or the like proceedings against the company's properties, including appointment of a Receiver. It also specifically provides that even a winding up petition would not be instituted and no other proceedings shall lie or proceed further, except with the consent of the BIFR.

77. Section 22 of the Act of 1985 is very significant and of wide ramifications and application. More often than not, the jurisdiction of the BIFR is being invoked, necessitated by varied actions of third parties against the sick industrial company. The proceedings, taken by way of execution, distress or the like, may have the effect of destabilizing the finalization and/or implementation of the scheme of revival under consideration of the BIFR. It appears that, the Legislature intended to ensure that no impediments are created to obstruct the finalization of the scheme by the specialized body. To protect the industrial growth and to ensure revival, this preventive provision has been enacted. The provision has an overriding effect as it contains non obstante clauses not only vis-a-vis the Companies Act but even qua any other law, even the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company and/or any other instrument having effect under any other Act or law. These proceedings cannot be permitted to be taken out or continued without the consent of the BIFR or the AAIFR, as the case may be.

78. The expression 'no proceedings' that finds place in Section 22(1) is of wide spectrum but is certainly not free of exceptions. The framers of law have given a definite meaning to the expression 'proceedings' appearing under Section 22(1) of the Act of 1985. These proceedings are for 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.

79. The expression 'the like' has to be read ejusdem generis to the











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top