Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2003 (1) TMI HC This
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the first Petitioner Company as a "sick industrial company" under SICA. 2. Validity of the references made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). 3. Non-registration of references by the Registrar of BIFR. 4. Appeals against the Registrar's decisions. 5. Determination of the cause of action and the timeline for making references under SICA. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of the first Petitioner Company as a "sick industrial company" under SICA: The first Petitioner Company, Shiva Suitings Limited, contended that it met the criteria of a "sick industrial company" as defined under the amended Section 3(1)(o) of SICA, effective from 1st February 1994. The company claimed that as of 31st March 1993, its accumulated losses exceeded its entire net worth, thus qualifying it as a sick industrial company. The amendment to SICA defined a "sick industrial company" as one that has accumulated losses equal to or exceeding its entire net worth at the end of any financial year, provided the company has been registered for not less than five years. 2. Validity of the references made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR): The first Petitioner Company made multiple references to BIFR, starting with a resolution on 1st April 1994, followed by references on 12th April 1994, 4th March 1995, and 11th September 1995. The company argued that these references were valid and should have been considered on their merits. 3. Non-registration of references by the Registrar of BIFR: The Registrar of BIFR declined to register the references on multiple occasions. The first reference was declined on 30th June 1994 on the grounds that there were no workmen engaged in the company's factory, thus disqualifying it as an industrial company. The second reference was declined on 29th June 1995 due to defects such as the use of a pre-revised Form 'A', lack of a valid factory license, and the closure of the unit since 1st August 1994. The third reference, filed on 11th September 1995, was ultimately rejected by BIFR on 6th February 1996, as the company did not meet the requirement under Section 3(1)(o) of SICA. 4. Appeals against the Registrar's decisions: The Petitioners did not challenge the Registrar's decisions to decline the registration of the first and second references. However, they appealed against the BIFR's decision dated 6th February 1996. The Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) set aside the BIFR's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Upon reconsideration, BIFR again rejected the reference on 11th August 2000, and the AAIFR upheld this decision on 30th April 2001. 5. Determination of the cause of action and the timeline for making references under SICA: The AAIFR held that the cause of action for the first Petitioner Company arose on 1st October 1993, and since the reference was not made within sixty days, it was not maintainable. The Petitioners argued that the company should be deemed to have become a sick industrial company on 31st March 1993, and the reference should have been considered on its merits. The court noted that after 31st March 1993, the factory was closed, and no workers were employed, thus disqualifying the company as a sick industrial company under Section 3(1)(o) of SICA. Conclusion: The court concluded that the first Petitioner Company did not qualify as a sick industrial company as of 11th September 1995, the date of the third reference. The references made on 12th April 1994 and 4th March 1995 were not challenged in appeal, and the company failed to establish its status as a sick industrial company under the amended SICA provisions. Consequently, no case for invoking writ jurisdiction was made out, and the rule was discharged without costs.
|