H. K. RATHOD, J. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nagesh C. Sood appearing on behalf of appellant and learned Advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 on caveat.

2. The appellant-Central Bank of India has filed present appeal challenging' the order passed by Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No. 153 of 2000 vide Exh. 44 dated 22nd March, 2007. The Civil Court has dismissed the suit considering the bar of Sec. 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'S.I.C.A.') read with Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C. ').

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Sood submitted that Special Civil Suit is filed by appellant against respondents, where, contention raised by respondent vide Exh. 44 that respondent being a sick unit declared by Board of Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'B.I.F.R. '), therefore, under Sec. 22(1) of S.I.C.A., present suit is not to be maintainable against respondents.

4. This aspect has been examined by Civil Court while considering the reply given by appellant Exh. 48. The Civil Court has considered the relevant provisions of Sec. 22(1) of S.I.C.A. and also considered that respondent-Unit is declared sick on 4th June, 1999 and Civil Suit is filed on 28th September, 2000. It is not disputed by appellant before this Court that respondent is not sick unit declared by B.I.F.R. Only contention which is raised by learned Advocate Mr. Sood is that language used or incorporated under Sec. 22(1) suggests the suspension of the proceedings, even Civil Court should not have suspend the suit which otherwise come in way of appellant in filing fresh proceedings, therefore, question of limitation will also arise. Therefore, he submitted that Civil Court has committed gross error in understanding the provisions of Sec. 22(1) of S.IC.A.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Sood relied upon one decision of Apex Court in case of Gram Panchayat & Anr. v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1990 (2) SCC 440 - Para 7. After relying upon aforesaid decision of Apex Court, in short, the submission of learned Advocate Mr. Sood is Civil Suit should not have to be dismissed by Civil Court. It should have to be remained pending, but proceedings should have to be suspended by Civil Court.

6. Learned Advocate Ms. Mandavia supported the order passed by Civil Court vide Exh. 44.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Sood and learned Advocate Ms. Mandavia. I have also perused the order passed by Civil Court - Exh. 44. The short question is that suit proceedings which has been initiated claiming the amount from sick unit Whether it is permissible under provisions of Sec. 22(1) of S.I.C.A. and whether suit can lie without prior permission of B.I.F.R. under the provisions of Sec. 22(1) of S.I.C.A.

8. The said aspect has been recently examined by Apex Court in case of K.S.L. Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Arihant Threads Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2008 (12) SCALE 42. The relevant discussions are made in Paras 20 to 25 interpreting the provisions of Sec. 22(1) and also considered the ambit and scope of S.I.C.A., therefore, the same are quoted as under :

"20. So far as S.I.C.A. is concerned, it has been stated in the Preamble that the Act has been enacted in public interest "with a view to securing the timely detection of sick and potentially sick companies owning industrial undertakings, the speedy determination by a Board of experts of the preventive, ameliorative, remedial and other measures which need to be taken with respect . to such companies and the expeditious enforcement of the measures so determined and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto". While interpreting various provisions of the Act, the said object has to be kept in mind by Courts. Section 2 is in the form of 'declaration' and declares that the Act has been enacted for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the prin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document