9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's said appeal arising from the order dated 07.06.2011 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in Case No. 33/2009, was rejected. 2. The order dated 07.06.2011 passed by the BIFR was one whereby the petitioner's reference under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA') was rejected. While doing so, the BIFR observed as under:- "2.8.1Having considered the submissions made and material on record, the Bench observed that the company has filed a reference based on ABS as on 31.3.2008 whereas the company's networth had eroded fully as per ABS as on 31.3.2004. The company ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which had been filed by the petitioner was based on the audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2008, whereas, the petitioner's networth had eroded fully four years earlier, as was evident from the audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2004. The BIFR has specifically noted that the petitioner had not given any justifiable reasons for this delay of more than four years in filing the reference, when, under Section 15(1) of the SICA, the reference in this case was to be filed within 60 days of the finalization of accounts of the financial year ending 31.03.2004. Apart from the ground of delay, the BIFR also rejected the reference because of the fact that in terms of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 read with Notification S.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aspect of the matter was taken by the petitioner before AAIFR. Furthermore, even in the writ petition this ground of challenge has not been taken by the petitioner. 6. We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that consideration of the question as to whether the petitioner was a small enterprise under the said Act of 2006 or not would be academic in the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner did not challenge the other ground of rejection of his reference on the point of delay before the AAIFR. We, however, leave the question with regard to classification as a small enterprise open and do neither confirm nor reject the stand taken by the AAIFR. Insofar as the point of delay is concerned, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
