( 1 ) THESE Company Petitions are filed by various creditors of SLM Maneklal Industries Limited seeking order of winding up of the said company inter alia on the ground that the said company has failed to pay its dues to the creditors and that it has no longer remained economically viable unit.

( 2 ) ON notices being issued by this Court in the said proceedings the Company has appeared through Advocate M/s. R. P. Bhatt/m. R. Bhatt and Co. and has filed its Affidavit-in-Reply almost in all petitions except in one or two showing cause as to why no order of winding up should be passed.

( 3 ) TODAY at the admissional hearing of the aforesaid petitions Mr. M. R. Bhatt learned Counsel appearing for the Company has submitted that the said company has made reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B. I. F. R.) u/s. 15 of the Sick Industrial Company (Special Provisions) Act 1985 The said reference has been registered by the B. I. F. R. as case No. 4 of 1991. He submits that inquiry u/s. 16 of the said Act is pending before B. I. F. R. The Board has recorded the prima facie satisfaction that the company has become a sick industrial company in terms of the provision of Section 3 (1) of the Act. He further submits that in view of the provision of Section 22 of the said Act these Company Petitions for winding up are required to be dismissed.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the submission of Mr. Bhatt relevant provision of Section 22 of the said Act is reproduced hereunder:section 22- Suspension of Legal proceedings contracts etc. 1 Where in respect of an industrial company an inquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under Section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under S. 25 relating to an industrial company is pending then notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act 1956 or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the Industrial Company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial Company or for execution distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company for the appointment of a Receiver in respect thereof shall lie or be proceeded with further except with the consent of the Board or as the case may be the Appellate Authority.

( 5 ) IN computing the period of limitation for the enforcement of any right privilege obligation or liability the period during which it or the remedy for the enforcement thereof remains suspended under this section shall be excluded. 5 Based on the above provision and more particularly placing reliance upon the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Testeels Limited v. Radhaben Ranchhodbhai Cheritable Trust reported in A. I. R. 1988 (Gujarat) 213 Mr. Bhatt vehementally submitted that the present petitions for winding up are required to be dismissed. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court has positively ruled that the words no proceeding shall lie shall have to be given their natural meaning. Continuance of a pending proceeding for winding up if allowed by the Court in exercise of its discretion would clearly conflict with the paramount object for which Section 16 (4) of the Act is enacted submits Mr. Bhatt by placing reliance upon the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Testeels Limited (supra ).

( 6 ) IN the case of Testeels limited (supra) Honble Chief Justice P. R. Gokulakrishnan speaking on behalf of the Division Bench examined the scheme of Sick Industrial Company (Special Provision) Act. The Division Bench read various provisions of the Act more particularly statement of objects and reasons for enacting the said Act with Sections 16 17 19 and 22 of the said Act and observed that the said Act is enacted in order to revive and rehabilitate the sick industry. The court also found that the financial ass