TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s properties all over India. The manner in which such sale should take place was also laid down. As against the order of the BIFR, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('AAIFR' in short). On 17-6-2004, the property was sold to the sixth respondent. It is this sale deed executed in favour of the sixth respondent that is assailed in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. M. Jayaraman would submit that though the scheme framed provides for rehabilitation of the factory by selling the property at Ambattur, the first respondent has made the re-commencement of the factory impossible. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, wells are essential for manufacture of tyres, which is the business activity that the respondent engages in. The property that has been sold to the sixth respondent contains active wells belonging to the first respondent and therefore, it will not be possible to start the factory without the wells. It is next submitted that though guidelines were framed for the sale of properties at Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai, Goa, etc., the property at Ambattur was not referred to in the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it, having entered appearance and the interim injunction application is still pending. While so, the petitioners, without referring to the pendency of the civil suit, had filed this writ petition. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the sixth respondent had bona fide believed that the AAIFR had permitted the sale and had no reason to believe otherwise. According to learned senior counsel, the sixth respondent had purchased the property at a very heavy cost and the injunction would cause hardship. It was also submitted that the petitioners cannot invoke article 226 of the Constitution for the relief sought for. 5. It is doubtful whether the petitioners can seek a relief of a mere declaration that a sale deed is void without seeking any further relief. If the petitioners wanted to assail the sale deed, their remedy was before the civil court. The frame of the prayer itself shows that what is attacked is not the decision of the AAIFR to order sale but the sale itself. The pleadings and some of the materials on record may be referred to. 6. There is no dispute that the first respondent-company was under financial difficulties and in order to revive the company, the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c. Clause D(v) under the reliefs and concessions to Government of Tamil Nadu reads, "GOTN to permit disposal/development of land/building at Ambattur". The petitioners claim that this permission is a pre-condition for the sale and if the sale deed had been executed without obtaining permission, it is void. Clause 3.6 of the scheme refers to monitoring, and the AAIFR had directed that the progress of implementation of the scheme will be monitored by the BIFR with the assistance of the IDBI and that the BIFR would be free to exercise all their powers under the SICA without being constrained by the fact that the scheme has been sanctioned by the AAIFR. 9. The order passed by the BIFR on 28-3-2001, refers to the manner in which the final acceptance of the bids should be made and that is only with the prior approval of the BIFR. On 25-2-2003, the AAIFR had passed an order in which it is stated as follows : "As a step towards rehabilitation of the appellant-company, efforts have been made by the BIFR for sale of surplus assets to finance rehabilitation scheme of the appellant-company. As the sale of the assets is the primary input to meet the cost of the scheme, it is necessary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiating the sale. The petitioners have not challenged the process by which a decision was arrived at by the authorities under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, to sell the property. That decision was arrived at in 2002. They knew about it. In 2004, after due publicity, the property is sold and it is just like any other sale. The vendor is the first respondent and the purchaser is the sixth respondent. The declaration that is sought for in respect of this sale deed cannot be granted in a writ petition. No infringement of any right of the petitioners is shown. 15. The one factual objection regarding the wells, has been met by the respondents stating that there are sufficient number of wells in the lands retained by the first respondent and if necessary, more wells could be dug. 16. All the other objections regarding prior permission are really not the concern of the petitioners. If those are factors which vitiate the sale, it is the respondents who will suffer, having purchased a property without the required sanction. It was submitted on behalf of the first respondent that with the funds realized by the sale, many of the secured creditors/debenture ....