2009 (7) TMI 781

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al 85 Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIFR) and praying therein that the petitioner be permitted to file objections to the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS). 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner is a Statutory Corporation established under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948. Its functions are the promotion and operation of schemes for irrigation, water supply and generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy. 3. Respondent No. 3 company was consumer of the petitioner and defaulted in making the payment of electricity bills and till 31^st August, 2001 a sum of Rs. 2.73 crores was due and payable by respondent No. 3 company to the petitioner. 4. Respondent No. 3 company be came sick and a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....^st May, 2007; from respondent No. 3 company which raised grave apprehensions about the intention of respondent No. 3 company. Under these circumstances, BIFR should have given time to the petitioner to file objections under Section 19 (2) of the SICA. In the order BIFR did not mention that there was deemed consent of the petitioner corporation. Sixty days as provided under Section 19 (2) of SICA should have been calculated from the date of communication of respondent No.3 company dated 21^st May, 2007 whereby it had reduced its offer given in the DRS. BIFR had wrongly ordered for supply of electric power to respondent No. 3 company even though not a single instalment was paid by the said company. BIFR also unilaterally deleted some clauses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....garding restoration of power supply was imperative to enable rehabilitation of respondent No.3 company. Respondent No.3 company was bound by the sanctioned scheme with regard to the payments of dues of the petitioner and the petitioner was at liberty to bring to the notice of the BIFR any failure on the part of respondent No. 3 company in case schedule was not adhered to. In the light of above observations AAIFR dismissed the appeal. 10. Petitioner has reiterated the same contentions which were raised before the AAIFR and the same have been considered by us. To support his contentions that BIFR ought to have given time to the petitioner company to file objections/suggestions beyond a period of 60 days as provided in Section 19 (2) of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r has not placed on record any document to show that it had made any written request on or before the expiry of 60 days period. BIFR held hearing on 4^th July, 2007 wherein petitioner had participated. Even, during the hearing no written request was made by the petitioner for extension of time. It is highly improbable that BIFR would have avoided to record such request had it been made by the petitioner more so, when no bias has been alleged. 13. Sub-section 2 of Section 19 of SICA clearly provides that if no consent is received within a period of 60 days it shall be deemed that consent had been given. Since petitioner had failed to file objections to the DRS, "deemed consent" has to be inferred. 14. Judgments relied upon by the petit....