FAO No. 10/2013 was tagged with WP(C) No. 4303/2013 following order dated 14.08.2013, passed in WP(C) No.4303/2013. Thereafter, as per order dated 01.11.2013, passed in WP(C) No.6286/2013, the said case was tagged with WP(C) No. 4303/2013. Subject matter of all the three cases being inter-related, and as agreed to by learned counsel for all the parties, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. FAO No. 10/2013 has been filed by one Sri Ghanshyam Sarda against an order of injunction dated 13.05.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc.(J) Case No.254/2013, arising out of Title Suit (TS) No.166/2013. By the aforesaid order of injunction, Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) has been restrained from proceeding further with BIFR Case No. 149/1994. The suit has been filed by one M/s. Shiv Shankar Trading Company, an unsecured creditor of JK Jute Mills Company Ltd. (Company), which has been declared as a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, reference under which has been registered with the BIFR as BIFR Case No. 149/1994.

3. WP(C) No.4303/2013 has been filed by the said M/s. Shiv Shankar Trading Company, the plaintiff in TS No. 166/2013, challenging the legality and validity of the proceedings before the BIFR dated 16.05.2013 and order of the BIFR dated 01.07.2013, passed in BIFR Case No. 149/1994 on the ground that the proceedings and order of BIFR are in violation of the injunction order of the Civil Court.

4. WP(C) No. 6286/2013 has been filed by the Company challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 05.09.2013, passed by the BIFR in BIFR Case No. 149/1994 on the ground that the said order is not only in violation of the injunction of the Civil Court, but stood vitiated because of participation of respondent No. 2, a Member of BIFR, in the proceedings of the said case, though he had earlier rescued himself from hearing the matter as per order dated 31.01.2013.

5. Though papers filed before the Court are voluminous, and exhaustive arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, attempt has been made to confine the proceeding only to the immediate issues confronting the Court in the present litigation. Consequently, only the bare essential facts relevant for the present adjudication are briefly set out hereunder.

6. Plaintiff in TS No. 166/2013 claims to be an unsecured creditor of the Company having supplied raw jute to it during the year 2002-2003. As the Company did not make payment for the supply made, which was to the tune of Rs. 38,65,607.00, plaintiff made enquiries and came to know that the Company had moved BIFR for a declaration that it is a sick company and seeking protection under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). BIFR had, in fact, declared the Company as a sick company under SICA and proceedings are on under the provisions of SICA for revival of the Company. In spite of its status as a sick company, the Company entered into the above deal with the plaintiff without informing it about the said position. 07. Plaintiff contended that as per latest audited balance sheet of the Company, its net worth has become positive. Since its net worth has become positive, it would no longer be a sick company and, therefore, it would no longer have the protection of BIFR under SICA. In other words, BIFR would no longer have jurisdiction to continue the proceedings in BIFR Case No. 149/1994 which would pave the way for the plaintiff to institute appropriate legal proceeding against the Company for realization of dues.

8. Plaintiff then instituted TS No. 166/2013 at Guwahati seeking a declaration that the Company is not a sick company within the meaning of SICA, that BIFR would cease to have jurisdiction over the Company and that plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.38,65,607.00 from th