9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that the appellant was declared as a Sick Industry under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. 2. But the Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Judge on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and others Vs. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals and others (1997 Sales Tax Cases 327). It is against the said order of the learned Judge, in W.P(MD)No.9612 of 2007, dated 18.08.2011, that the present appeal is filed. 3. The main and only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the law laid down in Corromandal Pharmaceuticals has been subsequently clarified by a Three Member Bench of the Apex Court in Raheja Universal Limited Vs. NR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive, whichever is earlier, would be the matters which squarely fall within the ambit and scope of Section 22 of SICA 1985 subject to their satisfying the ingredients stated under that provision. This would include the proceedings before the civil court, Revenue Authorities and/or any other competent forum in the form of execution or distress in relation to recovery of amount by sale or otherwise of the assets of the sick industrial company. It is difficult for us to hold that merely because a demand by a creditor had not been made a part of the scheme, pre-or postsanctioning of the same for that reason alone, it would fall outside the ambit of protection of Section 22 of SICA 1985. 56. BIFR, being a specialised body which is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed earlier. This is not the type of a case that is covered by the ratio laid down in paragraph Nos.55 and 56 of Raheja Universal. 7. Even in paragraph No.73 of Raheja Universal, the Supreme Court did not make any distinction. On the contrary in paragraph No.74, the Supreme Court pointed out that the view in Corromandal Pharmaceuticals was not adopted in the subsequent judgments. In paragraph No.76, the Court made a distinction between contractual and non-contractual liabilities. The question of statutory liability that arise out of taxing statutes was not the issue before the Supreme Court in Raheja Universal. 8. Insofar as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.613 of 2009 is concerned, it appears that the Divisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
