Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the first petitioner company was a sick industrial company within the meaning of section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on the date of the third reference and whether the reference under section 15 was maintainable.
Analysis: The amended definition of a sick industrial company required an industrial company registered for not less than five years which, at the end of a financial year, had accumulated losses equal to or exceeding its entire net worth. The Court noted that after 31 March 1993 the factory had been closed and no workers were employed during the relevant preceding twelve months before the third reference dated 11 September 1995. In the absence of workers and manufacturing activity, the company could not satisfy the statutory requirements of an industrial company owning an industrial undertaking or of a factory within the relevant statutory meaning. The earlier orders declining registration of the first and second references had also not been challenged, and once a reference is declined it is treated as not having been made.
Conclusion: The company was not a sick industrial company on 11 September 1995 and the reference was not maintainable.