2000 (1) TMI 900

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short). The Board is considering the proposal for revival. When the revival proposals were under the consideration of BIFR some of the depositors who deposited money with the appellant-company filed applications before the CLB under section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956. The CLB allowed the applications of the depositors holding that the provisions of section 22 are not attracted to the proceedings under section 58A(9) of the Companies Act. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the writ petition. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 4. The question for our consideration is whet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The only facet of section 22(1) of the Act that can be said to be of some relevance to the present appeal is the relief for recovery of money that is prohibited under the Act in respect of a company under revival by the BIFR. The question is whether the claim for return of deposit could be termed as 'suit for recovery of money' against the company. If the answer is in the affirmative then the appellant-company would succeed and not otherwise. 7. The term 'deposit' has been defined by the Explanation to section 58A as a deposit of money with a company including an amount borrowed by it but excluding such categories of amount as may be prescribed in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. The learned single judge has considered this qu....