Misc. Appeal No. 112 of 2015. Case: Coventry Coil-O-Metic (Haryana) Ltd. Vs Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Misc. Appeal No. 112 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sunil Goel, S.S. Behl and Sushil Bhartiya, Advocates and For Respondents: Rajeeve Mehra, Sr. Advocate, Vaibhav Tyagi and J.L. Goel, Advocates |
| Judges | Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Sick Industrial Companies (special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 16, 17, 18, 22, 25 |
| Citation | 2015 (IV) BC 34 (DRAT) |
| Judgement Date | April 22, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)
-
The appellant herein had filed an application before the Tribunal below for suspension of proceedings on the ground that the appellant company was before BIFR on a scheme referred to under Section 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, SICA), which was under consideration. The prayer of the company for suspending the proceeding before the Tribunal is declined by the Tribunal below by observing that no proceedings are or were pending before BIFR in respect of the appellant company. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The plea before the Tribunal below was that the appellant company became sick and had filed a reference in the year 1999 before BIFR for being declared as sick company and for its rehabilitation. In the application itself the company had mentioned that BIFR had closed the reference on 4.10.2001 by observing that the net worth of the appellant company had become positive.
-
Reference is made to the assignment made by the ICICI Bank of its loan account to Kotak Mahindra Bank and that of IFCI to a company now known as M/s. Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., the applicant of O.A. It is also disclosed that the respondent had filed various cases before different Forum including Company Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the present O.A. before the Tribunal below. The appellant had challenged the action initiated by the respondent under the SARFAESI Act by way of Writ Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was dismissed on 16.12.2010. this order was impugned by filing an LPA, which was admitted and by way of interim measure surplus land of the appellant company was allowed to be sold. Out of the sale proceeds, Rs. 9 crore was paid to the respondent besides some payment to Kotak Mahindra Bank. The appellant had challenged this order by way of SLP, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court relegated the parties to the High Court.
-
In response to the notice of this application, the respondent came forward to state that no reference before BIFR or any appeal before AAIFR was pending. It was also stated that no scheme was under preparation in terms of Section 18 of SICA. The respondent, therefore, pleaded that the appellant was not entitled to any protection under Section 22 of SICA to seek stay of proceedings in the O.A.
-
The Counsel for the appellant has invited my...
To continue reading
Request your trial