AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anjib Banerjee, J.-The first petitioner claims to be a union representing some of the workmen of the company. A rival faction of the workers of the company has seriously questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain the proceedings. 2. Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd. (the company) was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) when the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, was in its infancy. It is a matter of concern that for the next 22 years the company has languished before the Board though proceedings have been had before the appellate authority and also before this court. 3. The BIFR recommended under section 20(1) of the said Act of 1985 that the company be wound u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e seriousness of their proposal. The present promoters were also left free to give a proposal for the revival of the company. Incidental directions were given for the operating agency to allow interested parties to obtain information regarding the company and its assets and the operating agency was required to make a preliminary examination of all the proposals received pursuant to the directions. 5. The order of September 2, 2008, was carried in appeal by the company at the behest of the promoters. The appellate authority held that the BIFR had failed to appreciate the purport of the order of this court made on June 27, 2008 (Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd. Sangrami Shramik Union v. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsequent orders of the BIFR have overtaken the petitioners' present grievance and that it is the rival faction which has now been recognised by the BIFR to be the rightful representative and the present petition, apart from the other sinister motives, has been instituted for these petitioners to cite the acceptance of the writ petition as acknowledgment of their locus to represent the workers of the company. 8. The appellate authority, in its order of March 19, 2009, held that the order of this court did not permit the BIFR to consider any proposal for the revival of the company to be submitted by any person other than the parties who were represented in the earlier proceedings before this court. Such interpretation does not appear to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pen, and that the BIFR will be free to decide any or all of them, if occasion arises. There shall be no order as to costs." 9. What the order required was that the BIFR should consider any revival proposals or schemes that may be submitted by any of the parties before the court. It did not preclude any revival package or proposal being submitted by any person who was not a party to the proceedings that culminated in such order. The substance of the order was that every attempt should be made to explore the possibility of reviving the company. There were no fetters placed on the class of persons who could apply for revival of the company. The appellate authority, in construing the order of June 27, 2008, in the manner that it has acted im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present the workers of the company, it appears that the BIFR abdicated a jurisdiction vested in it by law. The BIFR is the primary body to recognise the entitlement of persons appearing before it to represent various parties interested in the matter. Surely, the company's assessment of any rules would not tell upon the locus of any workers or a trade union to represent the workers before the BIFR. The operative agency may have a role to play in assessing any revival scheme or in assessing the financial matters relating to a company. The operating agency, in the scheme of the said Act of 1985, cannot take upon the burden of adjudicating as to whether a party claiming a right to appear before the BIFR is authorised to be represented. It was t....