AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 799
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case. Respondent No. 1 (M/s. Arihant Threads Ltd.) ('Company' for short) was incorporated as a joint venture with Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation. It set up an export oriented spinning unit for manufacturing cotton yarn in the industrial area of Amritsar District of the State of Punjab. In 1992, Goindwal Sahib Industrial & Investment Corporation allotted Plot No. 454, Flocal Point of Goindwal Sahib Industrial Area by way of lease to the Company for a period of 99 years with a specific condition that the lessee will not transfer the interest in the property for first fifteen years without prior permission of the lessor. The lessee was to enjoy the right of possession so long as it continued paying instalments of the premium by due-date and abide by other terms and conditions of the lease. It was, however, stated that the lessee would be entitled to mortgage lease-hold rights to a Bank, Punjab Financial Corporation or Life Insurance Corporation of India as security for a loan to be raised for construction of factory building, purchase of raw materials, etc. The Industrial Development Bank of India ('IDBI' for short) which was the predecessor of the Stressed Assets Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... directed the Company to appear on October 23, 2003 for settling terms and conditions of the proclamation of sale and for disclosure of its movable and immovable assets. Harnek Singh, Security Guard who was present at the Company premises was served and he signed the summons in token of acceptance of notice on behalf of the Company. Service Report was filed by one Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate for certificate holder affirming Dasti service on the Company. Another service report was also filed along with affidavit by the same advocate on October 6, 2003. On January 3, 2004, Mr. Vivek Verma, Local Commissioner appointed by the Recovery Officer, visited the site and filed his report wherein he stated that two machines were missing. He also recorded that the unit was in running condition. At the instance of SASF, North India Technical Consultancy Association Ltd. ('NITCO' for short) filed a valuation report in January, 2004 assessing the fixed assets at Rs.17.51 crores. It is alleged that on July 1, 2004, the Company created illegal tenancy in favour of M/s Roland Exports. On September 16, 2004, the Recovery Officer fixed the reserve price of the property at Rs.12.50 crores (Rs.4.50 crores ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing in the High Court. Meanwhile, the Company got the property valued by Himachal Consultancy Organisation Ltd. ('HIMCO' for short), according to which the realizable value of the property had been increased to Rs.20.22 crores. On July 26, 2005, DRT-I, Delhi allowed Appeal No. 52 of 2004, set aside the auction sale subject to the Company fulfilling terms and conditions with regard to payment of certain amount, interest, expenses etc. 8. The Tribunal, while granting relief to the Company, ordered; "In my humble opinion, natural justice requires that the appeal be allowed but with some conditions so that further progress of recovery be not stalled by the appellant. In these circumstances, this appeal is allowed, subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the appellant will pay 5% of the amount deposited by the auction purchaser within 10 days as a penalty as per rule 60 of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Act. (ii) The appellant will pay an interest on the amount deposited by the auction purchaser @ 9% p.a. calculated from the date of deposit of the same till today. The interest accumulated on the FDRs of auctioned amount till date will be paid to the CH Fl who will adj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hall stand allowed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the judgment-debtor in Appeal 52/2004 before the Presiding Officer, DRT, Chandigarh which is renumbered on transfer to DRT-I, Delhi as Transfer Appeal No. 1/2005 shall stand dismissed. Points formulated for consideration are answered accordingly. No costs. Since, the appeal filed by the auction-purchaser is allowed, the Recovery Officer, DRT, Chandigarh shall confirm the sale and shall take all steps immediately for handling over the possession of properties in question, to the auction purchaser, if necessary, by taking assistance from all authorities concerned. The auction purchaser, who was permitted to withdraw the auction amount deposited towards sale price without prejudice to its rights during pending of these appeals, shall forthwith deposit the entire amount and thereafter the Recovery Officer shall proceed to complete the other requirements according to law forthwith." 11. By a separate order of even date, DRAT ordered the Recovery Officer, Chandigarh to act upon and execute the directions issued by it. The appellant deposited Rs.12.50 crores on the same day. But the sale could not be confirmed since the Presiding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... So far as ex-parte decree passed by DRT is concerned, the counsel submitted that the Company was duly served and in spite of that, it failed to appear before the Tribunal. A grievance was also made that in an appeal against fixing reserve price (which was not maintainable), DRT granted interim relief on certain terms and conditions. But even those conditions had not been complied with by the Company. Reserve price fixed was proper, sufficient and reasonable and DRT ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Recovery Officer. 14. The counsel vehemently contended that the High Court ought to have taken into account over all conduct of the party, particularly when the Company had invoked discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In exercising writ jurisdiction, submitted the counsel, the conduct of the petitioner is indeed a relevant and extremely important consideration. In the instant case, the Company had not come with clean hands. It had not repaid the loan amount; did not appear before DRT in spite of service of summons; an ex parte final order was, therefore, rightly passed against it; the Company filed an appeal before DRT aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling an appeal before DRAT. It was the right of the Company to take such action and the appellant cannot object against such course being adopted by the Company. It was, therefore, submitted that the High Court was wholly justified in allowing the petitions filed by the Company and no case has been made out by the appellant for interference against the said order by this Court. High Court's order 17. At the outset, it may be noted that the High Court had disposed of the petitions only on one ground as to applicability of SICA and held that the proceedings were barred under Section 22 of the said Act. This is amply clear from paragraph 13 of the order which reads as under: Several arguments have been advanced before us by learned counsel for the parties, but we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed on the very first submission of Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, namely that the proceedings are barred by Section 22 read with Section 32 of the SICA. (emphasis supplied) 18. Referring to the relevant provisions of SICA and keeping in view the ratio laid down in the decisions cited before it, the Court ruled that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompanies. Section 17 empowers the Board to make suitable order on the completion of inquiry. Sections 18, 19 and 19A deal with Preparation of Schemes, Rehabilitation and Arrangement for continuing operations during inquiry. Winding up of sick industrial company is found in Section 20. Section 21 allows Operating Agency to prepare inventory. Under Section 22A, directions can be issued preventing disposal of assets in certain cases. 21. Section 22 is a material provision which relates to suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. Sub-section (1) is important and may be reproduced; 22. Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc.-(1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nals, their composition, qualifications and term of office of the staff, salaries, allowances, etc. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals are found in Chapter III. The Tribunals are required to follow procedure laid down in Chapter IV. Chapter V relates to 'Recovery of debt determined by the Tribunal'. Section 29 declares that the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will apply to the recovery of amount due under the RDDB Act. Chapter VI is Miscellaneous. One section, however, is of extreme importance. It is Section 34 which allows 'overriding effect' to the provisions of the Act over other laws. It is a crucial provision and may be quoted in extenso; 34. Act to have overriding effect.-(1) Save as provided under sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (2) The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948, the State Financial Corpora....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions. The Court noted that sometimes two different words are used in one and the same statute to convey the same meaning, but "that is exception rather than the rule". The general rule is that when two different words are used by a statute, prima facie one has to construe different words as carrying different meanings. 27. The Court stated; "The word "suit" and "proceeding" have not been used interchangeably in SICA." 28. Referring to Pandurang R. Mandlik v. Shantibai R. Ghatge, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 627, the Court observed that in its comprehensive sense, the word 'suit' is understood to apply to any proceeding in a Court of Justice by which an individual pursues a remedy which the law affords. The modes of proceedings may be various, but if a right is litigated between parties in a Court of Justice, the proceedings by which the decision of the Court is sought may be a suit. The word 'suit' ordinarily means and, apart from some context, must be taken to mean a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint". (vide Hansraj Gupta v. Dehra Dun - Mussoorie Electric Trameray Co. Ltd.; 60 IA 13 : AIR 1933 PC 63). 29. In the instant case, proceedings had been initi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed, the Tax Recovery Officer shall make an order confirming the sale and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. It was submitted that none of the Rules had been invoked by the Company by applying to the Tax Recovery Officer and by depositing the amount. The Tax Recovery Officer, hence, was enjoined to confirm sale as per the mandate of Rule 63. An appeal filed by the Company under Section 30 of RDDB Act before DRT against the order of Tax Recovery Officer fixing reserve price was ill conceived and not maintainable as there was no 'order' within the meaning of RDDB Act which was appealable. Attention of the Court in this connection was invited by the learned counsel to Rule 53 [Contents of proclamation]. It provides that a proclamation of sale shall specify, inter alia, "the reserve price, if any, below which the property may not be sold" [Clause (cc)]. It was submitted that fixation of 'reserve price' is not mandatory, condition precedent or sine qua non and if reserve price is not fixed, the order cannot be said to be non est, contrary to law or unlawful. In any case, when reserve price was fixed and property was sold not below such price, the only remedy available to the Comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f their respective submissions, referred to several decisions. Let us consider few of them. 36. In Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial & Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Anr., (1993) 2 SCC 144, this Court was called upon to consider the provisions of SICA and State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Observing that the word 'proceedings' in sub-section (1) of Section 22 of SICA could not be given narrow or restricted meaning to limit the legal proceedings, the Court held that if Section 22(1) is attracted, the proceedings must be held to be barred. 37. Keeping in view the underlying object of enacting SICA, the Court stated; Now we come to the impugned decision. The High Court was considerably influenced by the fact that the appellant-company owed crores of rupees to banks and felt that so far as such creditors are concerned, different considerations may come into play but the High Court with respect failed to appreciate that the 1985 Act was enacted primarily to assist sick industrial undertakings which inter alia failed to meet their financial obligations. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the view of the High Court that where the creditors of a sick ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....industries against foreign competition on the ground that it has given rise to an inefficient and outdated industrial system in our country. Our industries are suddenly being asked to compete with foreign companies, many of whom being giant multi-nationals have vast resources at their disposal. [They are merrily gobbling up our poor native companies. Many local industries, unable to stand the said competition are joining the foreign giants in one form of venture or other. Several hundreds of smallscale and medium scale units in telecom sector, for example have suffered enormously because of our love for foreign companies and their capital. The state of several public sector companies is no better. I am not saying that we have totally embraced, what may be called "Reaganism" or "Thatcherism". The fact, however, remains that it is no longer thought advisable to keep alive inefficient and uneconomic industries by injecting public funds or in the name of safeguarding the employment of the workers. And here is this Act, a product of the era of protectionism, seeking to keep alive "sick" companies by pumping in funds - mostly public funds - and by providing various concessions. In the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....twithstanding that the order for winding up of the Company had been passed, the bar would get attracted. 44. In Patheja Bros. Forgings & Stamping & Anr. v. ICICI Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 545, this Court held that without requisite sanction under Section 22 of SICA, no suit can be proceeded with. 45. In Jai Engineering Works Ltd. v.Industry Facilitation Council & Anr., (2006) 8 SCC 677, after referring to all leading decisions on the point and describing 1985 Act as a 'complete Code', this Court stated; The 1985 Act was enacted in public interest. It contains special provisions. The said special provisions had been made with a view to secure the timely detection of sick and potentially sick companies owning industrial undertakings, the speedy determination by a Board of experts for preventive, ameliorative, remedial and other measures which need to be taken with respect to such companies and the expeditious enforcement of the measures so determined and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 46. In my view, however, the learned counsel for the appellant is right in submitting that RDDB Act is a 'special law' and also a subsequent legislation, i.e. later l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purpose of the two laws and giving primacy to the Banking Companies Act. The Court indicated that when two Acts contain provisions giving overriding effect, it would be a difficult question as to which Act should prevail. 50. The Court stated- "It is, therefore, desirable to determine the overriding effect of one or the other of the relevant provisions in these two Acts, in a given case, on much broader considerations of the purpose and policy underlying the two Acts and the clear intendment conveyed by the language of the relevant provisions therein". 51. In Shri Sarwan Singh & Anr. v. Shri Kasturi Lal, (1977) 1 SCC 750, two provisions were before this Court. Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (as amended by Act 43 of 1964) provided that proceedings for eviction of tenants could not be taken without permission of the competent authority "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force". Section 39 of the Act further declared that the provisions of the Act shall take effect "notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law". The other statute was the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consideration; (1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), and (2) Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (LIC Act). One of the questions before the Court was which of the two should be considered as 'special law'. It was urged that the Industrial Disputes Act should be regarded as 'general law' relating to workmen and Life Insurance Corporation Act should be considered as 'special law' in relation to employees engaged by LIC. It was, therefore, submitted that when a complaint is made by an employee of LIC, he cannot invoke the provisions of ID Act and the matter must be decided in accordance with LIC Act. 55. Krishna Iyer, J. described the question as 'crucial' which demanded an answer about the statute being 'general' or 'special'. The well known doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant (general provisions will not abrogate special provisions) was also noted and it was observed that if LIC Act was considered 'special', it must operate over ID Act treating ID Act to be 'general' law. Noticing, however, the long title of LIC Act and its object for providing nationalization of life insurance business in the country and the matters connected therewith, the Court observed that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndustrial concerns with a view to boost up industrialization and the latter providing for revival and rehabilitation of sick industrial undertakings, if necessary, by grant of financial assistance, we cannot uphold the contention urged on behalf of the respondent that the 1985 Act is a general statute covering a larger number of industrial concerns than the 1951 Act and, therefore, the latter would prevail over the former in the event of conflict. Both the statutes have competing non-obstante provisions. Section 46B of the 1951 Act provides that the provision of the statute and of any rule or order made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force whereas Section 32(1) of the 1985 Act also provides that the provisions of the said Act and of any rules or schemes made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. Section 22(1) also carries a nonobstante clause and says that the said provision shall apply notwithstanding anything contained in Companies Act, 1956 or any other law. The 1985 Act being a subsequent enactment, the nonobstante cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against a Company for debt payable to banks and financial institutions, governing law was RDDB Act. No leave of Company Court as envisaged under the Company Act, therefore, was necessary. The Court held that though both the laws could be treated as 'special laws' in respect of recovery of dues by banks and financial institutions, it was 1993 Act which should be considered as 'special' vis-à-vis Company Law. 62. I may refer to a recent decision of this Court in M/s. Transcore v. Union of India & Anr., (2008) 1 SCC 125, wherein this Court considered the provisions of RDDB Act, 1993 and Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Considering the scheme of both the laws, the Court held that 1993 Act was a 'complete Code' by itself as far as recovery of debt is concerned. It was a 'special law' in the matters of recovery of dues and the provisions of the said Act would prevail over other laws. 63. It may also be profitable to refer to a three Judge Bench decision of this Court in Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 71. In that case, S took loan of Rs. one crore from F. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that its provisions are to prevail over any other Act. Being a later enactment, it would prevail over the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Had the Legislature wanted to exclude the provisions of the Sick Companies Act from the ambit of the said Act, the Legislature would have specifically so provided. The fact that the Legislature did not specifically so provide necessarily means that the Legislature intended that the provisions of the said Act were to prevail even over the provisions of the Sick Companies Act. It is a settled rule of interpretation that if one constructions leads to a conflict, whereas on another construction, two Acts can be harmoniously constructed then the latter must be adopted. If an interpretation is given that the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, is to prevail then there would be a clear conflict. However, there would be no conflict if it is held that the 1992 Act is to prevail. On such an interpretation the objects of both would be fulfilled and there would be no conflict. It is clear that the Legislature intended that public monies should be recovered first even from sick companies. Provided the sick co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he competing statutes and by giving effect to one over the other. Primacy of RDDB Act 67. Applying the above tests in the instance case, to me, it is crystal clear that the provisions of RDDB Act should be given priority and primacy over SICA. I may concede that both the Acts are 'special Acts' in the sense that they have been enacted for a specific purpose and object in view. Whereas SICA has been enacted in the public interest with a view to securing the timely detection of sick or potentially sick companies owning industrial undertakings, the speedy determination by a Board of Experts of the preventive, ameliorative, remedial and other measures which need to be taken with respect to such companies and the expeditious enforcement of the measures so determined and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, RDDB Act has been enacted to secure and protect public revenue and for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. RDDB Act is subsequent Act in the point of time being 1993 Act. It must, therefore, be presumed even in absence of any specific provision in the 1993 Act that Parliament was aware of all statutes which ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e understood to have expressed any opinion on other issues and as and when the matter will come up before the High Court, the same will be decided on its own merits without being inhibited by such observations. 71. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. ALTAMAS KABIR, J . 1. I have had the benefit of going through the draft judgment prepared by my learned Brother and while I agree with the conclusion arrived at by His Lordship, that the High Court erred in applying the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and dropping the proceedings against the Company, with utmost respect I find myself unable to accept the legal reasoning on which His Lordship's conclusion is based. I would like to traverse a different route in arriving at the same conclusion as arrived at by my learned brother. 2. Since my learned Brother has set out the facts involved in detail, I shall only highlight some of the facts which compel me to pen my views in a separate judgment. 3. The respondent No.1-Company, M/s Arihant Threads Limited, was incorporated as a Joint Venture Company with Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation. In 1992....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tained from the North-India Technical Consultancy Association Limited in January 2004, wherein the assets of the Respondent No.1-Company was valued at Rs.17.5 crores on 16.9.2004. The reserve price of the property was fixed at Rs.12.50 crores by the Recovery Officer and two separate dates were fixed for sale of the immovable and movable properties of the Company. The respondent No.1 - Company filed an appeal, being Appeal No.52 of 2004, before the DRT on 18.10.2004 under Section 30 of the RDDB Act questioning the fixation of the reserve price by the Recovery Officer at Rs.12.50 crores. The proposed auction sale was, therefore, cancelled till the DRT by its order dated 27.10.2004 allowed the auction sale to proceed but restrained the Recovery Officer from confirming the same till further orders. Consequently, the auction was held and concluded on 30.10.2004 and the appellant herein was declared to be the successful bidder. Consequently, as per rules laid down, the appellant deposited 25% of the reserve price immediately. On 11.11.2004, the appellant made an application to the DRT for accepting bank guarantee for the remaining balance of 75% of the sale price. On the said application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the same was registered as BIFR Case No.4 of 2006. 10. On 10.2.2006 the DRAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Company and allowed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the auction sale in favour of the appellant, subject to its depositing the sale price. By a separate order passed on the same day the DRAT ordered the Recovery Officer, Chandigarh, to implement the directions issued by it. However, despite the appellant depositing the full purchase price on the very same day, the sale could not be confirmed as the Presiding Officer was on leave. The appellant moved the DRAT for appointment of a Recovery Officer for confirmation of the sale. While the said matters were pending, the respondent-Company filed two writ petitions being C.W. Nos.2041 and 2042 of 2006, in the High Court of Delhi, against the order dated 10.2.2006 passed by DRAT dismissing the Company's appeal. The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent-Company and by its order dated 23.2.2006 set aside the order passed by the DRAT on the ground that Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 operated as a complete bar f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rections contained in the interim order under which directions for payment were made, but no payment was made as directed. To make matters worse, the respondent- Company forcibly entered the property in question and dispossessed the Receiver appointed by the Tribunal and removed machinery and other movable properties from the said premises and created an unlawful tenancy in favour of a third party. In such background it was submitted that even if the case was covered under Section 22 of SICA, the High Court, in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction, ought not to have allowed the writ petition filed by the Company. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-company submitted that the appeal preferred by the Company under Section 30 of the RDDB Act against the order of the Recovery Officer fixing the reserve price, was maintainable since the same was an order passed by the Recovery Officer under the Act. It was contended that since such a course of action was available to the respondent- Company it was not incumbent upon the Company to deposit the amounts indicated in the order of the DRT-I, Delhi, while allowing appeal No.52 of 2004 as a pre-condition for setting aside the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the two non-obstante clauses in the two separate enactments governing the same field and has held that since the RDDB Act was a later Act it would prevail over the SICA which was an earlier Act. 19. It is at this point that I am unable to travel the same path which my learned Brother has chosen to traverse. 20. The opening words of Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the RDDB Act clearly make the provisions thereof subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) which in unambiguous term provides that the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder would be in addition to and not in derogation of, certain statutes indicated therein, including the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It is, therefore, clear that while the RDDB Act would have an over-riding effect over other enactments, its provisions would only be supplemental to those of the SICA and consequently the provisions of the SICA would prevail over the provisions of the RDDB Act. Accordingly, if it is held that the situation in this case is covered by the provisions of SICA, then the view taken by the High Court would have to be upheld. If, however, it is found that the provisions of SICA d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondent-Company under Section 30 of the RDDB Act against the order of the Recovery Officer fixing the reserve price of the Company's assets was allowed by DRT-I, Delhi, subject to the Company fulfilling certain terms and conditions as indicated in the order. 27. It is only thereafter on 21.12.2005 that the respondent-Company filed a Reference before the BIFR which was registered as BIFR case No.4 of 2006 and the same came to be dismissed on 3.4.2006. 28. In the meantime, the appeal preferred by the respondent-Company before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal against the order of DRT-I, Delhi, allowing the Company's Appeal No.52 of 2004 was dismissed and the sale in favour of the appellant herein was confirmed, subject to deposit of the entire sale price. 29. It will be of interest to note that the proceedings taken by the respondent- Company after the passing of the final order by DRT, Chandigarh, on 15.7.2003, were directed against fixation of the reserve price by the Recovery Officer though in Appeal No.52 an application was made by the Company for setting aside the final order passed by the DRT Chandigarh. The same was however, of no consequence as the appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter all the aforesaid orders had been passed that a second Reference was filed by the respondent-Company before the BIFR on 15.9.2006 and on 22.2.2007 the Company was declared to be a "sick company" by the BIFR. 33. The above dates will amply show that the proceedings had been taken by the IDBI under Section 19 of the RDDB Act and the final order had been passed therein long before the BIFR came on to the scene. Even the auction sale was concluded in favour of the appellant before the first Reference was made by the Company to the BIFR. The sale was confirmed by the DRAT before the writ petitions were allowed by the High Court on the ground that the recovery proceedings were barred under Section 22 of SICA. Ultimately, the Company's first Reference was rejected by the BIFR and only upon a second reference filed by the respondent-Company on 15.9.2006 was the Company declared by the BIFR to be a "sick company" on 22.2.2007. 34. In other words, the final order in the recovery proceedings under Section 19 of the RDDB Act was passed and the auction sale was concluded before the first Reference was filed by the respondent-Company with the BIFR and long before the respondent-Compan....