Sick company revival and industrial takeover powers can coexist once SICA proceedings end, allowing reconsideration under the 1951 Act.

The statutory schemes of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 were treated as distinct. The former was described as a revival and rehabilitation framework for a financially sick company as a whole, while the latter was said to permit investigation and, with High Court permission, takeover or restart of a particular industrial undertaking even during winding-up proceedings. Section 32 of the 1985 Act was construed as overriding only while an SICA action or scheme remained pending or operative. Once the BIFR report recommending winding up had been submitted and proceedings had ended, that bar did not prevent consideration of action under the 1951 Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Government was bound to consider the petitioner's representation seeking action under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, notwithstanding proceedings initiated under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the two enactments was treated as materially different. The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held to operate for revival and rehabilitation of a financially sick company as a whole, while the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 was held to permit the Central Government to investigate and, with the permission of the High Court, take over or restart a particular industrial undertaking even while winding-up proceedings were pending. Section 32 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was construed as giving overriding effect only so long as action or a scheme under that Act remained pending or operative. Once the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction had submitted its report recommending winding up and its proceedings had come to an end, that overriding effect did not bar consideration under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. On the facts pleaded, the viability of the fibre unit and the possibility of alternative takeover required examination by the Central Government.

Conclusion: The Central Government was required to reconsider the petitioner's representation and decide whether to initiate action under sections 15A and 18FA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951; the objection based on the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was rejected.

---