2006 (3) TMI 346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the respondent relies upon the order passed by this court on October 6, 2005, in Company Petition No. 69 of 2004 on the basis of a reference registered with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short "BIFR") on February 28, 2005, to state that the proceedings in the present winding up petition cannot proceed in view of the bar contained in section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the amount claimed by the petitioner is admitted liability and is not part of the scheme proposed by the respondent-company, therefore, the proceedings are not required to be stayed. Reference is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons are taken by the BIFR. In fact, the said judgment was considered in Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd. [2000] 101 Comp Cas 284 (SC) ; [2000] 5 SCC 515, where the apprehension that any unscrupulous litigant, after suffering an order of winding up, might approach the Board merely by filing a petition and get the proceedings in the company case stayed, the Supreme Court found that the court has no option but to adhere to its earlier decision taken in Real Value Appliances Ltd. v. Canara Bank [1998] 93 Comp Cas 26 (SC); [1998] 5 SCC 554. It was observed that if a* provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the Legislature to amend, modify or repeal it by having recourse to a....