TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions have been raised by both sides during the course of hearing of these Appeals which we have not adverted to as they are not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in these appeals. We express no opinion on the jurisdiction of BIFR under other provisions of the Act. It is open to the BIFR to review the implementation of the Sanctioned Scheme and pass suitable directions. The AAIFR held that the Second Respondent has no liability in respect of Kota units which have been sold to the First Respondent. The said findings were not challenged by the First Respondent in the Writ Petition filed in the High Court. The High Court set aside the entire order dated 11.12.2008 without taking note of the findings in favour of the Second Respondent - Appeal dismissed. - CIVIL APPEAL No. 8597 of 2010, 8598 of 2010, 8599 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2016 - ANIL R. DAVE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Uday Gupta, Adv., Mr. Shivani M. Lal, Adv., Mr. M.K. Tripathi, Adv., Mr. R. C. Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Nilofar Khan,Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv., Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, Adv., Ms. Susmita Lal,Adv., Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv., Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 15 crores. The liability towards payment to the workmen was to be borne by APPL. It is also relevant to mention here that a Tri-Partite Labour Settlement Agreement (TLSA) was executed between the First Respondent, Second Respondent and the Labour Unions on 09.10.2002. Another TLSA on the same terms was entered into between the First Respondent, Second Respondent and Staff Association on 22.10.2002. The total liability under the TLSAs worked out to approximately Rs.43.69 crores. There is no unanimity between the parties on the scope of the above mentioned TLSAs. The First Respondent claims that there is no compulsion on its part to provide future employment to all the existing workmen whereas the workmen contend to the contrary. There is also a dispute about the obligation of First Respondent to revive the Kota units. 4. On 07.01.2005, the AAIFR sanctioned a Scheme for transfer of the Kota units to the First Respondent in terms of the MoU dated 19.10.2001. The liability of the First Respondent was fixed at Rs.52.46 crores (Rs.15 crores to be paid to JK Synthetics Limited/Second Respondent and Rs.37.46 crores to be paid to the workmen). The order dated 07.01.2005 was challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are exempted from attending any further hearing in the matter. The address list be amended accordingly, as requested by the company. The employees and other respondents listed by Hon ble AAIFR in order of 31.08.2006 be noticed for the next hearing. 7. The First Respondent participated in the next review meeting held by the BIFR on 30.06.2008. It complained of no notice being issued for the earlier meeting dated 05.05.2008. The First Respondent informed the BIFR that it is not a sick company and no directions can therefore be issued to it. The BIFR held that the First Respondent was not right in contending that it does not fall within the purview of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and need not implement the orders issued by the Board. The BIFR directed the IDBI to carry out an inspection of the Kota units and to submit a report. There was a direction to maintain status quo in respect of the material/assets at the factory site of the Kota Units till further orders. There was also a stay on transfer/alienation of land or assets of the company without the permission of the Board. The orders dated 05.05.2008 and 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he company under sub-section (1) of section 20 and up to commencement of the proceedings relating to the winding up before the concerned High Court. 10. Sick industrial company is defined in Section 3 (1) (o) which is as under: (o) sick industrial company means an industrial company (being a company registered for not less than five years) which has at the end of any financial year accumulated losses equal to or exceeding its entire net worth. Explanation: - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that an industrial company existing immediately before the commencement of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Amendment Act, 1993, registered for not less than five years and having at the end of any financial year accumulated losses equal to or exceeding its entire net worth, shall be deemed to be a sick industrial company; 11. It is clear from a plain reading of Section 22 A of the Act that the Board can issue a direction not to dispose of assets only to a sick inACdustrial company. There is no dispute that the First Respondent is not a sick industrial company and that it purchased the assets from a sick industrial company in accordance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
