Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1903 - DELHI HIGH COURTConsequence of the registration of the reference under the provisions of SICASuit for recovery - prohibition under Section 22 of the SICA - Seeking to set aside ex-parte judgement - It is contended that Applicant was unaware of the suit proceedings - HELD THAT:- The suit for recovery against a company which is registered under the Provisions of SICA, would not ipso facto be rendered as not maintainable. The prohibition as contemplated under Section 22 of the SICA, would not be applicable to the present suit which is essentially for recovery and proving the debt. The proceedings that come within the purview of Section 22(1) of SICA are proceedings in nature of execution, distress or the like. It would depend on the facts of each case that whether the suit is hit by Section 22 of the Act. Concededly, the present suit is for recovery and is not one which has the effect of execution, distress or like action against the properties of the Sick Company and therefore it would not be hit by Section 22 (1) of the SICA. Significantly, there is no denial to the averments made in the Plaint, the contents of the Plaint have to be presumed to be correct. The final decision of the Court is only determinative of the indebtedness of the Applicant. The suit even without the permission of BIFR was maintainable on the date of filing. It is further significant to note that Plaintiff on becoming aware of the reference before BIFR, filed an application before BIFR on 23rd July, 2012, seeking its permission to execute the decree. The Defendant was provided an opportunity to file a reply to the said application, however, the same was not filed. Plaintiff was impleaded in the said proceedings before BIFR on 12th December, 2012. Defendant came out of purview of the Act on 18th September, 2014. This clearly shows the Judgment Debtor was aware of the decree passed by this court since 2012. After coming out of the purview of SICA, from 2014 to 2019 the Judgment Debtor remained silent. The conduct of the Defendant is completely laid-back and lackadaisical. There is no ground for interference. Application is dismissed.
|