- (1.) In these three writ petitions, filed by M/s. Modi Industries Limited, the petitioner challenges the demand notices issued by the then U.P. State Electricity Board (now known as U.P. Power Corporation Limited) for payment of dues towards the electricity charges for the period mentioned in respective demand notices.
(2.) The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri J.N. Mathur is that the petitioner industry has already been declared sick industry under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, by the BIFR on 14-3-1991 and, therefore, unless permission is taken from the Board, no coercive steps could have been taken by the petitioner for realization of electricity dues in view of Section 22(1) of the aforesaid Act. In support of the argument learned counsel further urged that as per the provisions of Section 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Sick Companies Act) no proceedings for the winding up of the sick industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the Industrial Company can be taken where an enquiry 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.
(3.) Reliance has also been placed upon the case of Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd. [2000] 25 SCL 461 (SC) wherein the question involved before the Apex Court was as to whether in a case wherein winding up orders have been passed, further action can be taken in pursuance of the said order in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, has observed as under:" It is true that for invoking the applicability of Section 22 it has to be established that an inquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under Section 17 is under preparation or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or an appeal under Section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending. But it cannot be said that despite the existence of any of the aforesaid exigencies the provision of Section 22 would not be attracted after the order of winding up of the company is passed. The words "no proceeding for winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties company or for the appointment of receiver in respect thereof shall lie or be proceeded with further", "leave no doubt in our mind that the effect of the section would be applicable even after the winding-up order is passed as no proceeding even thereafter can be proceeded with further under the Companies Act. The High Court appears to have not taken note of the aforesaid words ie. to be proceeded with further. As the impugned judgment is based upon wrong assumption of the provision of law and completely ignoring the vital words noticed hereinabove, the same cannot be sustained." (p. 463);