IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. P. MISHRA
INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
MAHARASHTRA STEEL LTD. - Respondents
COMPANY PETITION 17 Of 1987
Decided On : 11/18/1987
INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION ACT, 1948 - SECTION 30 - SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY - APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER - COURT'S DISCRETION - SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1985 - SECTION 22 - BAR ON PROCEEDINGS - CONSENT OF BOARD REQUIRED.
Fact of the Case:
Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) filed an application under Section 30 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948, seeking the sale of mortgaged property and the appointment of a receiver over the same due to breach of loan agreements by the respondent company.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the respondent company had made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the same had been registered for enquiry.
Issues: 1. Whether the court could proceed with the application for the sale of mortgaged property and the appointment of a receiver in light of the pending enquiry before the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985? 2. Whether the consent of the BIFR was required under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, for such proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the language used in Section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, indicated that the Board was required to make an enquiry once a reference had been registered, and that the word "may" in the provision was directory and not mandatory. 2. The court further held that the object of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, was to salvage viable companies, and that it would not be proper for the court to exercise its powers under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948, in a manner that would undermine this objective. 3. The court also noted that Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, barred proceedings for the winding up of a company or for the appointment of a receiver without the consent of the BIFR.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application, holding that it could not grant the reliefs sought at that stage due to the pending enquiry before the BIFR and the requirement of consent from the BIFR under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
( 2 ) THE present application has been moved by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, a body corporate established under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (Act No. XV of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under S. 30 of the Act for the sale of the mortgaged property under S. 30 (1) (b) (c) of the Act and for the appointment of the Receiver over the same.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner No. 1, the respondent No. 1 as an incorporated company, on 7-11-1972 took a loan of Rs. 52 lacs for its project for manufacture of mild steel ingots in the State of U. P. The said loan was taken on the terms and conditions contained in the Loan Agreement dt. 5-7-1973. It was entered into between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1. A security for the said loan together with interest etc. was agreed to and a Deed of Hypothecation was also made in favour of petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 1. Similarly a further security for the said loan in favour of petitioner No. 1 was made by deposit of title deeds of the immovable properties on 5-11-1974. On 7-7-1978 the petitioner No. 1 further advanced a loan of Rs. 15 lacs for the project of the respondent No. 1 and it was advanced on the terms and conditions contained in the Loan Agreement it. 12-4-1979. Similarly security for this loan was also taken by the petitioner No. 1 according to its satisfaction. On account of breach of the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement as aforesaid committed by the respondent No. 1, the details of which have been mentioned in paragraph No. 19 of the application, is the cause for making the present application. On account of the said breach, the petitioner No. 1 exercised its powers under the said Agreements by means of letter dt. 2-9-87 by which it recalled the entire amount due for principal, interest and other monies in respect of the said loans and called upon the respondent No. 1 to pay forthwith an aggregate amount of Rs. 92,09,563/ -. It is further urged that the respondent No. 1 has suspended its production since Feb. , 1987 and the factory has been lying closed since then. The plant and machinery have been lying idle and are rapidly deteriorating in value for want of maintenance and proper care to the detriment of petitioner No. 1 and is also in danger of being damaged, destroyed, pilfered and removed, since there is no proper security arrangement in respect of the said properties. It is also averred that the properties which have been mortgaged and charged, the value of which would not be sufficient for realisation of the amount which the petitioner No. 1 is entitled even if the entire property is sold (this part of the averment has been resiled by the other side ). It is in the light of the present petition, a prayer for ad interim order was made for passing the order under S. 30 (3) of the Act.
( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners this Court on 5-10-1987 passed the necessary orders in terms of prayer (d) of the petition and further called upon the respondent No. 1 to show cause why an order be not granted as sought in terms of prayers (b) and (c ). It is after notice given to the other side and after their appearance and after the counter-affidavit being filed, the present application has come up before me for the grant of reliefs (b) and (c) as prayed in the said application. The prayer (b) is for the appointment of the Receiver in respect of the said properties and prayer (c) is for the attachment of the said properties mentioned in prayer (a ).
( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed it is stated respondent No. 1 was incorporated in the State of Maharashtra and financial assistance thereof had been sanctioned by the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and about 40 acres of land had been allotted and handed over to the company by Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Limited in its industria
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.