TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asion would arise. With regard to the management of the company was concerned we have already found that none of the said issues arise from the order of the High Court under appeal before us - Even otherwise, we will not be justified to go into any of the said issues and express any opinion thereon inasmuch as this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution was not the appropriate forum to adjudicate grievances/claims with regard to the right of management of the affairs of the company by one group of shareholders or the other - It had been urged before us that several contentious issues with regard to the rights of one group of shareholders or the other to be in control of the management of the Company had been raised and some of such claims are still pending before the High Court - Coupled with the above was the pendency of several other proceedings with regard to permanent stay of the winding up of the Company - Taking into account all that had been stated above we are of the view that it would be just, proper and equitable to leave the contesting parties to pursue their remedies before the High Court or such other forum as may be competent in law - F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wound up by an order dated 28.10.1987 of the learned Company Judge of the Calcutta High Court. The appeal filed against the winding up order by some of the workers of the Company came to be dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the High Court on 18.11.1987. Thereafter, on an approach being made, the winding up proceedings were stayed for a period of six months on 22.9.1988 and a scheme for revival of the Company suggested by some of the shareholders was accepted by the learned Company Judge. Our perusal of the relevant facts and the voluminous pleadings brought on record would seem to suggest that the initial order of stay of the winding up dated 22.9.1988 has been extended from time to time and till the present date different schemes for running the affairs of the Respondent Company has been framed and implemented pursuant whereto the Company has been functioning as a going concern. We also deem it necessary to put on record that it has been contended before us that several applications registered and numbered as C.A. No. 126/2005, C.A. No. 302/2005, C.A. No. 303/2005, C.A.No.370/2009, C.A.No.957/2010 for a permanent stay of the winding up proceedings have been filed before the Cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court. The writ petition was, however, withdrawn on 16.6.2010 whereafter three separate writ petitions bearing Nos. 12377/2010, 12406/2010 and 12412/2010 were filed challenging the jurisdiction of the BIFR to entertain the reference; frame the scheme in question and pass orders for implementation of the same. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 25.1.2011 holding that the SICA is not applicable to the Respondent Company, it being incorporated outside India. Consequently, the scheme framed by the BIFR was set aside and quashed. As against the aforesaid order dated 25.1.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court six appeals were filed by the aggrieved parties bearing Nos.169/2012, 170/2012, 171/2012, 172/2012, 173/2012 and 1115/2011. The Appellate Bench of the High Court by order dated 19.10.2012 took the view that on a purposive interpretation of the provisions of SICA the said Act would be applicable to the Respondent Company. In this regard the Division Bench of the High Court specifically took note of the fact that the only factory of the Company is located in India at Baranagore; 90% of its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned Company Judge of the High Court to run the affairs of the Company. The appellants therein are aggrieved by the BIFR s scheme which, according to the appellant, would be in serious derogation of the scheme approved by the High Court. 6. Having noted the broad features of the grievances raised in each of these appeals we may now take note of certain connected facts on the basis of which we will be required to decide the necessity and expediency to adjudicate the core question arising in these appeals and the other issues that have been sought to be agitated before us. It has already been stated in the earlier part of this order that the Respondent Company is the owner of vast tracts of immovable property in and around Kolkata which has, with the passage of time, appreciated in value. Way back in the year 1988 an area of about 24 acres of land owned by the Company was acquired for the purpose of building, maintenance, management and operation of the second Vivekananda Bridge across the river Hoogly. In the year 2003 provisional compensation was assessed at Rs.21,28,21000/- and on deposit of the said amount possession of the land was taken over. The acquisition of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legislative history and object behind enactment of the SICA as well as the scheme under provisions of the Act is to be found in a recent pronouncement of this Court in Raheja Univeral Limited v. NRC Limited Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 148 At the cost of repetition it may be usefully recapitulated that the Act was enacted to overcome the grossly inadequate and time consuming institutional arrangements that were then in place for revival and rehabilitation of sick industrial companies. The Act was brought into force to provide timely identification, by an expert body, of sick industrial companies and to design suitable rehabilitation packages in order to obviate the enormous loss that would be occasioned by such units going permanently out of business. The provisions of Sections 15 to 19 contained in Chapter III of the Act dealing with references to the Board by the Management of sick industrial companies; enquiries into the working of such companies and the measures to be undertaken by the Board to make a sick industry viable had received a full consideration of this Court in Raheja Univeral Limited (supra). The details in this regard need not be noticed once again save and except that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (s) arising in the present appeals have surely become academic and redundant. If that be so, we do not see why we should answer the said question(s) in the present group of appeals. Instead, in fitness of things, we should leave the said question (s) open for determination in an appropriate case and as and when the occasion would arise. 10. In so far as the other issues, particularly, with regard to the management of the company is concerned we have already found that none of the said issues arise from the order of the High Court under appeal before us. Even otherwise, we will not be justified to go into any of the said issues and express any opinion thereon inasmuch as this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate grievances/claims with regard to the right of management of the affairs of the company by one group of shareholders or the other. It has been urged before us that several contentious issues with regard to the rights of one group of shareholders or the other to be in control of the management of the Company had been raised and some of such claims are still pending before the High Court. Coupled with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
