9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an application exhibit No. 5 for interim relief, inter alia, for a temporary order of injunction restraining the applicant from selling, encumbering, alienating, transferring, parting with possession of or creating any third party rights and interest in the movable and immovable properties described in the suit. In the said application, a further relief to appoint any fit and proper person as a Receiver or Commissioner to take possession of the movable properties of the applicant as described in the suit was also prayed for. The trial court, on 24-12-1999, granted the ex parte ad interim injunction as prayed for. However, with regard to the prayer for appointment of a receiver, the court only issued notice. The trial court, after hearing the parties, vide an order dated 25-4-2000, confirmed the ad interim injunction granted earlier. However, it refused to grant relief regarding appointment of a receiver. 3. The Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal from Order No. 175 of 2000, challenging the order passed by the trial court refusing to appoint a Receiver. In the said appeal from order, an application being Civil Application No. 3148 of 2000 was filed with a prayer to appoint any f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el. Learned counsels appearing for the parties have assured that they will not seek any adjournment and will proceed with the hearing of both the appeals from order on the date of hearing. D.S. permitted." 6. The said appeals are not heard in view of the fact that the Government of Gujarat, has issued a notification under the provisions of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958. Under the said notification, any remedies for the enforcement of all rights, privileges, obligations, liabilities (other than those liabilities, etc., towards its employees) are suspended and all proceedings relating thereto pending before any court, Tribunal, officer or authority are suspended during such period till the notification is in force. In view of the liberty granted to the applicant to withdraw from the said statement, the present application is filed. 7. Mr. Soparkar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has finalised its accounts as on 30-6-2000, and the same have been approved in the meeting of the board of directors held on 28-9-2000. According to the said accounts, the company has already become a sick industrial company wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s affidavit in reply, rejoinder affidavit filed in the proceedings and the judgments cited by learned counsel appearing for the parties. The question involved in the matter is whether the applicant is justified in making a prayer to permit it to withdraw from the statement of not approaching the BIFR till hearing and final disposal of the appeal from order. Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, casts an obligation upon the board of directors of the company which has become sick industrial company within 60 days from the date of finalisation of the duly audited accounts of the company for the financial year as at the end of which the company has become a sick industrial company to make a reference to the Board for determination of the measures which shall be adopted with respect to the company. In other words, section 15 places a responsibility on the board of directors of a sick industrial company to make a reference to the Board and the reference is to be made within 60 days from the date of finalisation of duly audited accounts of the company. 11. Section 33 provides for penalty in the case of certain violations which are named as offences w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithdraw from its statement made before this Court. 13. Reverting back to the contention advanced by Mr. Thakore, the learned counsel for the respondent, namely, that the applicant adopted a sharp practice with the court by not intimating the court while assuring on 2-5-2000, that it will not approach the BIFR till 17-6-2000, even though it had already applied to the State Government for being declared a relief undertaking under the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act in December, 1999, I can only say that the applicant could have disclosed the said fact. However, the applicant has come with sufficient reasons for not disclosing the fact of having applied to the State Government for being declared as a relief undertaking. The applicant has stated as under : "I submit that notification is issued by the State Government under the provisions of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, only for the purpose of saving unemployment. Whenever it is felt that it is necessary to obtain such a relief it is the duty of an undertaking to approach the State Government for such a relief in the larger interest of preventing unemployment. The said notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de on behalf of the respondent-company that it will not be making any application before the BIFR till the disposal of the ad interim injunction application and thereafter the time was sought to convene a meeting between the respondent-company and the Chairman of the petitioner-bank to arrive at an amicable settlement. In the name of settling the dispute, many adjournments were obtained. When the matter was taken up for hearing, another counsel for the respondent tendered a xerox copy of the letter by the BIFR regarding the fact that a reference with regard to the application made by the respondent-company has been received by the BIFR and the case was registered. In short, the respondent-company adopted a sharp practice upon the court by approaching the BIFR in the name of settlement talks during the pendency of the proceedings even though a solemn statement was made on its behalf not to approach the BIFR. Considering the said fact, the learned Single Judge rightly came down heavily on the respondent-company by observing that in view of the gross facts and in view of the fraudulent conduct and sharp practice adopted by the respondent-company on the court, the application made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
