- (1.) This is a revision against the order dated 5-12-1994 passed by Civil Judge, Saharanpur.
(2.) The brief facts leading to the order are that respondent No.1 Central Bank of India filed a suit against revisionist Foremost Industries (India) Ltd. for the recovery of more than twenty two crores of rupees. The suit was filed by the Bank on 8-10-1994. The case of the revisionist is that prior to the filing of the suit by the Bank the revisionist company had made a reference under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act of 1985 (hereinafter called the Act of 1985). Reference made by the company was registered as case No.116/ 94 by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called the Board) on 26-8-1994. On 18-10-1994 the Board permitted the Company to file by 31/12/1994 the audited balance-sheet of the company for the year 1993-94 duly approved in the Annual General Meeting. The Company filed an application before Civil Judge, Saharanpur for stay of proceedings in the suit on the ground that an enquiry under Section 16 of the Act of 1985 is pending before the Board and, therefore, under Section 22 of the Act of 1985 the suit cannot proceed. It may also be mentioned that on 25-10-1994 the Civil Judge had passed two orders in the suit filed by the Central Bank against the company. One of the orders passed on 25-10-1994 is Annexure- 2 to the stay application and by this order the learned Civil Judge restrained the Company and its Directors from alienating or transferring the property mentioned in the order. By the second order passed on the same day (Annexure 3) the learned Civil Judge appointed an advocate as Commissioner and the Commissioner was directed to prepare an inventory of the assets of the Company and it was further directed that the Commissioner may sign the account books, stock register etc. and may also get the same signed by officers, Auditors etc. of the Company. The Company prayed that the operation of these orders may be stayed in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1985. By the impugned order dated 5-12-1994 the learned Civil Judge refused this prayer and rejected the application filed by the Company. Hence this revision.
(3.) I have heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Yaswant Verma, learned standing counsel for the Central Bank of India. It is an admitted fact that the remaining respondents Nos.2 to 9 are pro forma respondents.;