Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2012 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 122 - DELHI HIGH COURTDenial of counter-claim of the defendants - plaintiff instead of being liable to pay any amount to the defendants are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.90,34,079.73ps from them - petition under SICA before BIFR by Plaintiff - Held that:- Since the plaintiff does not admit the counterclaim, the defendants are entitled to an adjudication with respect to their claim and admittedly that adjudication cannot be done by BIFR. For this reason alone, the counterclaim is not liable to be stayed. Admittedly, the amount of adjustment sought by the defendants and that of counter-claim does not find inclusion in the liabilities admitted by the plaintiff before BIFR. The defendants have not approached BIFR and the plaintiff does not admit the claim set up by them. The Scheme by BIFR is yet to be framed. Since the claim of the defendants is not the subject matter of the proceedings before BIFR, the Scheme as and when it is framed, obviously, would not include the claim of the defendants. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that the claim of the defendants would not be covered by the sanctioned scheme as and when it is approved by the Board. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Ors v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals (1997 (3) TMI 452 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) squarely applies to the present case and, counter-claim, therefore, would not be hit by Sec. 22(1) of SICA.
|