The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decree was not void under Section 22 of the Act due to the company's discharge from the purview of SICA/BIFR before the date of the decree.

This revision has been directed against the order passed in E.A.No.10 of 2007 in E.P.No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. E.A.No.10 of 2007 in E.P.No.1 of 2007 is a petition filed under Section 47 of CPC r/w 151 CPC seeking indulgence of the Executing Court to dismiss the execution petition. The Decree holder in O.S.No.1159 of 1993 on the file of the Second Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to execute the decree in O.S.No.1159 of 1993 had filed E.P.No.1 of 2007 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur after getting the decree transferred. The decree was a transferred for execution. The petitioner in E.A.No.10 of 2007 in E.P.No.1 of 2007 viz., the Auto Mobile Products of India Limited represented by its Director Vaidyanathan and two others who are the defendants in O.S.No.1159 of 1993 on the file of the Second Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad had challenged the decree on the ground that on the date of passing of the decree in O.S.No.1159 of 1993, B.I.F.R proceedings were pending and under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act 1985(hereinafter referred to "Act") the decree itself is void and cannot be executed. Even though the said E.A.No.10 of 2007 was filed before the Executing Court under Section 47 of CPC, there was no oral or documentary evidence let in by the petitioner in E.A.No.10 of 2007 in E.P.No.1 of 2007. On the basis of the available materials and after due submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, the learned Executing Court had dismissed the E.A.No.10 of 2007 in E.P.No.1 of 2007 which necessitated the petitioner in E.A.No.10 of 2007 in E.P.No.1 of 2007 to approach this Court by way of this revision.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on an order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in Case No.36 of 1992 dated 210. 1997 would contend that the BIFR proceedings against the revision petitioner was pending even on the date of Judgment in O.S.No.1159 of 1993 on the file of the Second Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and hence the decree passed in O.S.No.1159 of 1993 is hit by Section 22 of the Act. This argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was meted out by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent by drawing the attention of this Court to Paragraph 2 of the order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in case No.36 of 92 (Page 36 of the typed set of papers) wherein the relevant observation runs as follows:

"As the company APIL ceased to become a sick Indusutrial Compny, within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Act, the Board, vide its order dated 20.2.2004,discharged the company from the purview of SICA/BIFR, with the direction that the un-implemented provisions of the SS-96, as may be there, would be implemented by the concerned agencies and their implementation would continue to be monitored by the Company and after the revision petitioner was discharged by the SICA/BIFR, it had received notice from EPFO and ESIC demanding penalty/damages to the tune of Rs.1.25 Crores outstanding for the period from December 1992 to October 2003 and also the revision petitioner brought to the notice of the Board that ESIC has also issued demand notice for payment of Rs.0.90 Crores towards damages and penal charges outstanding for the period from February 2003 to March 2004, approached the Board through their letter dated29. 2007. The Board in its order in Case No.36/92 at paragraph 4(ii) has directed both EPFO and ESIC to waive the penalty/damages claimed on the revision petitioner herein under their demand notices/orders dated 18. 2005 and 11. 2006 respectively relating to the unexpired period of scheme sanctioned by the Board on 111. 1996".

3. So it is clear that the scheme was also sanctioned as early as on 111. 1996 and that the revision petitioner was d