Creditor participation in BIFR inquiry permitted to protect debt, with liberty to renew a winding up petition if reference fails.

A creditor may participate in a BIFR inquiry into a company's financial condition to safeguard its debt because neither the Companies Act nor SICA expressly bars creditor involvement; the court reasoned the BIFR or its operating agency will consider creditors' claims and limited participation does not breach the restraint on adjudication under section 22 of SICA. The court allowed creditor participation in the specified reference and expressly reserved the creditor's liberty to file or renew a winding up petition under the Companies Act if the BIFR reference is rejected, leaving merits for future adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether, pending a reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, a creditor who has filed a winding up petition under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 can be permitted to participate in the BIFR inquiry and whether the company petition should be proceeded with or restrained under section 22 of SICA.

Analysis: The Court examined the interplay between proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956 (winding up under section 433/section 434) and the statutory reference mechanism under section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 governed by the restraint in section 22 of SICA. The Court noted that the BIFR (or an operating agency appointed by it) conducts an inquiry into the financial condition of the company and that such inquiry will necessarily consider the claims of creditors, including the petitioner. There is no provision in the Companies Act or SICA expressly prohibiting a creditor from participating in the BIFR inquiry to safeguard its debt. The Court further observed that permitting participation by the creditor does not violate the mandate of section 22 SICA which restrains adjudication by other fora but does not preclude giving directions or allowing limited participation to protect creditor interests. The Court also considered the possibility that if the BIFR reference is dismissed, the petitioner should have liberty to prosecute or renew its winding up petition, and reserved that right for future adjudication on merits in accordance with section 433/434 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to participate in the BIFR inquiry in reference case No. 128 of 1997 in respect of its debt; the court grants the petitioner liberty to file or renew the winding up petition under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 in the event the BIFR reference is rejected. The petition is disposed of by making these observations and granting the stated liberty to the petitioner.

---