Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vipin Sinha for the Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL); Shri Rajnath N. Shukla for the Official Liquidator; Shri V.M. Zaidi tor ex -directors of the company. Shri Shyam Naiain, Shri P.K. Sinha and Shri Sudhanshu Narain for BPL Display Devices Limited Workers Union; Shri Shahid Masood for the workmen (140), who were the employees of Uptron Colour Picture Tubes Ltd. taken over by BPL Display Deuces Ltd.; Shri S.K. Misra for Central Excise Department of the Central Government and Shri K.K. Chawla, Accounts Assistant, who claims to be member of the core group of employees formed by M/s BPL Display Devices Ltd.
(2.) THE Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL) is a company established to acquire non -performing assets of the financial institutions and banks with the objective of focused management of such assets and to maximize the recovery, for the secured creditors. The ARCIL is registered with the Reserve Bank of India under Section 3 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act) as a securitisation and construction company. It has acquired part of debts of ICICI Bank as well as debts of IFCI Ltd. and has stepped into shoes of the secured creditors of M/s BPL Display Devices Ltd. (the company. By a Deed of Assignment dated 30^th June, 2007 and 12^th September, 2008 executed by the secured creditors, ICICI Bank Ltd. and IFCI Ltd. have absolutely assigned and transferred its rights in the loan facilities with all underline security interest of the company to the secured creditors. M/s Uptron Colour Picture Tube Ltd. (UCPTL) was declared as sick industrial company by the Board of Industrial and Finance Reconstruction (BIFR) in the year 1993. A Draft Rehabilitation Scheme was prepared for its revival. In appeal the Appellate Authority Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (AAIFR) stayed the proceedings. However later the Supreme Court passed an order authorizing BIFR to continue the proceedings but not to pass final orders. The Supreme Court, thereafter, vacated the interim order. The scheme envisaged capital expenditure of Rs. 60 crores towards modernization/upgradation of the company's infrastructure; contribution of Rs. 71.25 crores from the incoming promoters M/s BPL Display Devices Ltd. and their associates (BPL) for the company's revival; write down of the company's equity by 90% resulting in deduction in the total value of equity to Rs. 424.90 lacs; acquisition of company's equity of Rs. 193.40 lacs by M/s BPL; Rs. 75 lacs by M/s Videocon International Ltd. and Rs. 37.50 lacs by M/s Toshiba (collaborators); settlement of outstanding dues of the companies, financial institutions, banks etc.; obligations to be fulfilled in respect of M/s U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd. (UPECL) the holding company and reliefs and concessions from the State Government and the Central Government. The IC1CI was appointed by the BIFR as Monitoring Agency (MA). The scheme envisaged the net worth of the company to turn positive during the year 1995 -96 and to wipe out the accumulated losses during 1997 -98. On the applications filed by the Banks, the BIFR in exercise of its powers under Section 22(3) lead with Section 22(5) directed on 15.7.1996 that the operation of all the contracts, assurances, agreements and settlements with the banks namely State Bank of India, State Bank of Patiala, Bank of India and Union Bank of India to be suspended for two years from 28.6.1996.
(3.) IN the review hearing on 21.2.2002 the Monitoring Agency noted that the company could neither settle nor pay the dues of the company's secured creditors nor could settle or pay the dues of the workers/employees. The BIFR as such directed MA to holding joint meetings to consider the status of compliance of the scheme and to submit a report. The joint meetings were convened on 23.3.2002, 16.10.2002 and 8.11.2002 in which it was found that the fiscal/financial performance of the company for the period ended 30.9.2002 was not satisfactory. The company has failed to make OTS payment and that there was no concrete proposal from the company for the outstanding OTS dues.;