Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.C. Rai for the petitioner and Sri Naveen Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri O.P. Misra and Vinay Saran, Advocates, for the respondents. The pleadings are complete and, therefore, as requested and agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been heard finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court and is being decided herewith.
(2.) Aggrieved by the recovery proceedings initiated by Industrial Finance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'IFCI' in short) against the assets of M/s Shiva Paper Mills Ltd. (petitioner No. 1), a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Delhi and works at village Mau, District Rampur, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed challenging notices dated 8.1.2008, 19.2.2008 and 1/ 2.5.2008, Annexures- 7, 8 and 9 respectively, issued under Section 13 (2) and (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2002'), mainly on the' ground that no proceedings for recovery can continue by virtue of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as'1985Act'), when an appeal under 1985 Act is pending before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'AAIFR').
(3.) The moot questions need to be answered are whether pendency of appeal under Section 25 of 1985 Act means continuance or pendency of reference under Section 15 of the 1985 Act, and, if that is so, when a creditor representing 3/4th or more in value of the amount outstanding against financial assistance disbursed to the borrower takes step for recovery of the amount under Section 13(4) of Act 2002, the reference/appeal would abate or not by virtue of Section 15 (third proviso) of 1985 Act.;