DABRIWALA STEEL AND ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED Vs. APPELLATE AUTH FOR INDUS AND FIN RECONSTRUCTION
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
DABRIWALA STIL AND ENGG.CO.LIMITED
Click here to view full judgement.
Manmohan Sarin, J. -
(1.)The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing of orders dated 6.12.1994, Annexure P/10; order dated 25.5.1993, Annexure P/6; Order dated 15.9.1993, Annexure P/8; and order dated 8.2.1995, Annexure P/11.
(2.)The BIFR in a reference made by the appellant sick company under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), vide orders dated 25.5.1993, Annexure P/6, formed a prima facie opinion that the appellant company was economically and commercially non-viable on a long term basis and it would be just and equitable to wind it up. The BIFR further vide orders passed in proceedings dated 15.9.1993, Annexure P/8, after publication of general notices in newspapers considered the objections/suggestions of the involved parties. The Haryana Financial Corporation, which had taken possession of the petitioner's factory, objected to the winding up by the official liquidator and sought to sell the assets mortgaged to it prior to winding up proceedings. The State Bank of India, the I.R.B.I., Operating Agency, as well as the Government of Haryana conveyed their no objection to the winding up. The BIFR vide orders dated 15.9.1993, Annexure P/8, recorded its final opinion under Section 20(1) of the Act, that it was just, equitable and in public interest to wind up the company and the objections of the Haryana Financial Corporation were held to be not sustainable.
(3.)Order dated 6.12.1994 is the order passed by the AAIFR in the appeals that had been preferred by the petitioner, Dabriwala Steel and Engineering Co.Ltd.; M/s.Jai Hind Investment and Industries Ltd., a subsidiary of the petitioner; and M/s.Haryana Financial Corporation. It is not necessary to advert to the appeals filed by M/s.Jai Hind Investment and Industries Ltd. as well as M/s.Haryana Financial Corporation ltd., except to notice that the former had filed the appeal against the order of BIFR dated 25.5.1993 asking the said company to furnish information to enable the State Bank of India to prepare the rehabilitation scheme. While the appeal filed by Haryana Financial Corporation was against the rejection of their plea that the official liquidator should not proceed with the winding up, since it had taken possession of the assets. This objection, as noted earlier, had been found to be unsustainable.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.