Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2008 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (11) TMI 624 - DELHI HIGH COURTJurisdiction of BIFR - Whether Haryana Financial Corporation correct to direct to settle the OTS in terms of guidelines issued by BIFR under section 19 of the Act? - Held that:- From the wording and language of the SICA, it is clear that where the object is to prevent sickness in an industrial company or to ameliorate its lot and other measures are required to be taken in relation to a sick industrial company, the reliefs and concession or sacrifices can be directed by the BIFR to the Central Government, State Government, Banks, institutions and financial institutions so as to remove the sickness of such industrial company. The whole object of SICA is to arrest industrial sickness in the country. Therefore, to say, that BIFR has no jurisdiction to issue such directions is totally misplaced. The directions of BIFR while in exercise of its powers under section 19 of the Act are mandatory, more so, when against a loan of ₹ 20 lakhs, the petitioner has paid ₹ 40 lakhs and is still prepared to settle in terms of RBI guidelines as per directions of BIFR. The dragging of matter by the respondent is totally inconsistent and contrary to the object and the scheme envisaged in SICA. We find no infirmity in the order of the BIFR directing Haryana Financial Corporation to settle the OTS in terms of guidelines issued by BIFR under section 19 of the Act. If the petitioner has paid some amount over and above the RBI guidelines, the same shall be refunded within four weeks to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute. The writ petition is allowed.
|