2017 (12) TMI 847

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocate for R6. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Harsh Sharma, Advocate for R7/Thapar Herbs & Spices. Mr. Sachin Dutta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shakil Ahmed, Advocate for R21/Libra Retailers Pvt. Ltd. ORAL SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL) J.K. Jute Mills Mazdoor Ekta Union has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Section 4(b) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Repeal Act, 2003 alleging inter alia that the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code' for short) do not provide for an efficacious remedy for implementing the directions of the Supreme Court in order dated 13th November, 2014 reported as Ghanshyam Sarda v. Shiv Shankar Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....paras 37 to 39 had issued certain directions to the BIFR including: * To satisfy itself and determine whether the net worth of the company had turned positive or not and upon satisfaction either way, the BIFR was to either de-register the company or consider the scheme for revival of the company. This exercise was to be completed within two months. * The transfer of Katihar property without express leave or permission of the BIFR was held to be questionable but since the transferee was not before the Supreme Court, the appropriate assessment of the same was to be done by the BIFR. As part of this exercise, BIFR was to consider and assess whether there was any necessity and expedience to sell the property in question and af....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR') under Section 22A of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Third respondent and others can contest the said submissions. 9. We may note that the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 have alleged that the respondent No. 3-company has violated the aforementioned orders. Contention of the respondent No. 3 is that they have not violated any orders. Respondent No. 7, on the other hand, states that he is a bonafide purchaser for good value. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the said aspect and leave the question open. 10. Whether or not there was/is any violation, and the effect thereof and the consequences followi....