TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . There is no dispute to the fact that order of the BIFR sanctioning the scheme is not appealed against by the respondent herein or by any other stakeholders. At page 122 of paper book, the company had produced copy of application filed by them before the BIFR. The BIFR's order is produced at page 128. It is "The company is discharged from perview of the SICA/BIFR (iii) All creditors, statutory authorities are at liberty to recover their dues, if any, according to sanctioned scheme (v) Unimplemented portion of the sanctioned scheme would be implemented by all concerned " There is no challenge to the above order passed by the BIFR. It is not in dispute that as per the sanctioned scheme the Jharkhand State Electricity Board directed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abilitation under section 17(3) of the Act. The case was numbered as BIFR Case No. 266 of 1987. 2. On May 25, 2012 the BIFR passed the order and sanctioned the rehabilitation scheme of the company. This application is filed by the company under section 31(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, stating that, since the scheme sanctioned by the Board is the resolution plan to be treated under section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, it may be declared that all stakeholders in the company including Jharkhand State Electricity Board (the respondent) is bound by the scheme. The respondent has no right to recover sum of ₹ 9,87,792 (rupees nine lakhs eighty seven thousand seven hundred and ninety two only) towards electri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant-company as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board. There is no dispute relating to the following facts. 5. M/s. Harry Refractory and Ceramic Works P. Ltd., the applicant company had filed BIFR case bearing No. 266 of 1987 before the BIFR for sanction of rehabilitation scheme. On April 7, 1988 the BIFR declared the company to be sick unit. On August 22, 1998 the BIFR ordered that the company to be wound up. The company filed the appeal before the AAIFR but the Appellate Authority confirmed order of the BIFR. The company filed writ petition in the hon'ble Calcutta High Court. The hon'ble Calcutta High Court vide order dated August 5, 2009 directed the BIFR to reconsider the draft reconstruction scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nkruptcy Code. This Adjudicating Authority set up to look into pending proceedings before the then BIFR. 10. According to the applicant-company, the scheme which was approved by the BIFR has to be implemented as if its resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. All stakeholders are bound by the plan. 11. The Central Government made order to remove difficulties about the schemes sanctioned by the BIFR. In the Eighth Schedule to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the amendment is made in section 4, clause (b) after second proviso and it reads as follows : Provided also that any scheme sanctioned under sub-section (4) or any scheme under implementation under sub-section (12) of section 18 of the Sick Industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard/Power Supply Company to waive penal interest, compound interest, liquidated damages charged or chargeable from the company up to the date of sanction of scheme by the BIFR . The applicant stated in the application that on March 31, 2013 the corporate applicant had filed application by Misc. A. No. 358 of 2013 with prayer to deregister its case from the SICA. On July 23, 2013 the BIFR passed the order to de-register the applicant's case holding that it was no more sick company but directed to implement the unimplemented portion of the scheme and pass the order of deregistration. 14. As per the scheme, document produced on record as annexure 7. The period of scheme was up to March 31, 2016 it shows that the sanctioned scheme was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was deposited by the company pending its appeal against disconnection of electricity supply. It is say of the company that the amount was deposited under protest. However, the documents on record do not support the company's above contention. Order of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR), New Delhi in Appeal No. 94 of 2010 dated April 30, 2010 is on record. It is clearly mentioned that, Learned counsel for the respondent-company (the appellant herein) undertakes that the company will deposit sum of ₹ 5,00,000 with the appellant (i.e., the respondent) within two weeks. The appellant agreed to restore the power supply on receipt of the amount . 17. The above order is self-explanatory. By p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
