- (1.) On 29th respectively all these five matters appeared in the list and when the Court was about to pass judgment and order on the question of grant of interim relief Mr. A.K. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing in M.A.T. 311 of 2011 (The Baranagore Jute Factory Plc vs.- Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd.) and M.A.T. 312 of 2011 (The Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. vs.- Baranagore Jute Factory Plc.) submitted on 29th March, 2011 that in the appeal his client does not want any interim order should be passed however he prayed the appeal should be heard out expeditiously as no factual question is involved, only question of law is required to be decided. Even the hearing of the appeal can be taken and the same can be disposed of on the basis of the papers placed before Court since all respondents had appeared in this matter. According to him the appeal itself should be heard right from tomorrow or soon thereafter. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.A.T. 328 of 2011 (Namokar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. vs.- Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd. & ors.) contends that since he made submission for grant of interim relief necessary order should be passed in their appeal and at the same time the appeal should be heard out expeditiously. Mr. Debal Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in M.A.T. 323 of 2011 (The Secretary, Baranagore Jute Factory, Plc Workers' Employees Union vs.- The Baranagore Jute Factory Plc.) contends that this Court will pass necessary interim order in his client's appeal, if no interim order is passed then there will be total deadlock of the functioning of the Company. He submits that the body of the management constituted by the BIFR has been functioning till the date of delivery of judgment and in fact, they were allowed to function by the learned trial judge till the date of delivery of judgment. Mr. Ashok Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the respondents in the appeal supports that interim order should be passed. Learned counsels namely Mr. P.C. Sen, Mr. Kar, Mr. Bimal Chatterjee, Mr. Sukhendu Sekhar Roy and Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra contend that no interim order should be passed relating to management of the company. Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing in support of his appeal contends that no interim order should be passed.
(2.) When the matter appeared in the list on 30th March 2011 and the Court was about to pass order considering fresh submission made on 29th March 2011. Mr. Sen, learned counsel in addition to submission made earlier contends that if for any reason the Court feels to pass any order relating to management, the same should be passed without prejudice to his clients' (Respondent Nos. 3 & 4) rights and contention. On that day his submission was recorded, but the Court reserved to deliver interim judgment and order.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid contention and submission now the question arises whether this Court will pass any interim order on the basis of the submissions made by all the parties? Since learned counsels Mr. Pal, Mr. Banerjee in their separate appeal submits that interim order should be passed on the submission already advanced we think that in their appeal we should consider question of grant of interim relief. All the appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order. So grant or refusal to grant interim relief can be considered in any appeal, even though the company in its appeal now does not press for the same after argument is advanced. We pass following judgment and orders taking note of the submission of the learned counsel already advanced:- Above connected applications are made for appropriate interim relief prayed therein. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Judge allowed the prayers of writ petition No. 12377(W) of 2010 and W.P. No. 12406(W) of 2010 setting aside all the proceedings before BIFR and all orders passed therein. However, W.P. No. 12412(W) of 2010 was dismissed. The writ petitions were brought basically to challenge the jurisdiction of the BIFR in entertaining reference under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short SICA). Contentions in all the writ petitions were basically that the provisions of SICA are applicable to foreign companies, carrying on business in this country.;