(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Learned counsel Shri Harnish Darji for the appellant placed on record a copy of order dated 23.3.2012 passed by the appellate authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction('BIFR' for short) in case of the scheme for rehabilitation of the present appellant. He pointed out that by the said order, order passed by BIFR which was adverse to the present appellant came to be set aside and proceedings came to be remanded to BIFR for fresh consideration. On strength of such order, counsel submitted that when proceedings before BIFR are pending, by virtue of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, ('SICA' for short), no steps for coercive recovery against the company can be taken.
Learned counsel Shri Arpit Mehta appearing for respondent however, submitted that as per his instructions, one of the secured creditor has instituted measures for recovery of debt under sub-section(4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and that therefore, by virtue of further provision to section 15(1) of the SICA Act, pending proceedings before BIFR would abate. He prayed for time for filing affidavit giving such details.
S.O.
to 16.4.2012.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (C.L.
Soni,J.) (raghu) Top