2018 (10) TMI 175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us (S. Ravindra Bhat, J) had recused. It appears from the affidavit that in two orders - relating to M/s Agarpara Jute Mills Ltd. [W.P.(C) 1345-1348/2016, W.P.(C) 1356/2016, W.P.(C) 3465/2016 and W.P.(C) No.5980/2018] one of us (S. Ravindra Bhat, J) had expressed, at some stage, reservations and recused from hearing. However, there are orders which disclose that in respect of the company, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings i.e. Agarpara Company Ltd., no such order was made. In fact, order dated 04.03.2016 indicates to the contrary. Having regard to these, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners do not have any reservations with respect to the present pending proceedings. 2. Petitioner's grievance is with respec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....W.P.(C) 1621/2017 decided on 06.02.2018) a similar order enabling the petitioner, an aggrieved party, to approach the National Company Law Tribunal, be made. 4. This Court had occasion to deal with the various facets pertaining to the repeal of SICA as well as the Repeal Act, 2017 - notably in Ashapura Minechem Limited vs. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online 11784 and ATV Projects (India) Limited vs. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online Delhi 12136 as well as in Twenty First Century Steels Ltd. (supra). In Twenty First Century Steels Ltd. (supra) this Court observed as follows:- "It has been clarified that the fourth proviso to Section 4(b) of the Repeal Act introduced and enacted by the Removal of Difficulty Order dated 24.05.2017 is appli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that the fourth proviso would not be applicable to and does not confer a right on the "sick Company" but would be applicable to only third parties, who were aggrieved by the order of the Board sanctioning the scheme, and in whose cases limitation period for filing of the appeal had not expired. In view of the aforesaid clarification, we would observe that the petitioner has to approach National Company Law Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner that they have been left without any remedy or forum for redressal of grievance, is, therefore, misconcieved and is rejected. On the question of abatement and the effect of the Repeal Act, earlier decision of this Court in Ashapura Minechem Limited vs. Union of India and Others, WP(C) 9674/2017 ....