BENGAL CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED Vs. JAYANTA KAR
LAWS(CAL)-1996-4-37
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 10,1996

Bengal Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited Appellant
VERSUS
Jayanta Kar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.)Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited is the petitioner before me in this revisional application. The opposite party who was an employee of the company petitioner has instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 161 of 1992 in the 4th Court of the Assistant District Judge at Alipore praying inter alia for accounts by and between the petitioner and the opposite party and also to pass a decree for the amount to be found due. In that suit the petitioner made an application under Sec. 21(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 inter alia praying for stay of all further proceedings of the aforesaid title suit till the disposal of the proceedings now pending before the B.I.F.R. By the impugned order the learned Assistant/ District Judge, 4th Court at Alipore has passed an order directing that all further proceedings in the aforesaid suit shall remain stayed subject to this that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 45,000.00 in Court as security money. Feeling aggrieved by this order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,000.00 as security money, the petitioner has come up to this Court in revision.
(2.)Since the opposite parties have not challenged the order directing that all further proceedings in the suit in question shall remain stayed till the disposal of the case being case No. 533 of 1992 pending before the B.I.F.R. it is not necessary for me to go into the question as to whether such grant of stay of all further proceedings till the disposal of the case pending before the B.I.F.R. was legal and valid. Mr. Guha the learned Advocate for the petitioner however, submits that in view of the statutory provision as provided in Sec. 22(1) of the aforesaid Act, the direction regarding deposit of Rs 45.000.00 made by the Trial Court was absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction, in my view, Mr. Guha is right in his submission. Sec. 22(1) of the aforesaid Act provides as follows:-
"Where in respect of an industrial company an inquiry under Sec. 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under Sec. 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under Sec. 25 relating to an industrial company is pending then, not with standing anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a Receiver in respect thereof and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans, or advance granted to the industrial company lie or be proceeded with further except with the consent of the Board of, as the case may be the Appellate Authority".
(Emphasis is mine).
(3.)From a perusal of Sec. 22(1) of the Act it is pellucid that the aforesaid Act confers aright on the industrial companies whose enquiry is pending or a scheme duly sanctioned and is in operation, whereby no suit for recovery or money shall lie against the said industrial company. A further perusal of Sec. 22(1) of the aforesaid Act would clearly show that the suit could be proceeded with further if consent was given by the B.I.F.R. In view of Sec. 22(1) of the Act it is, evident that the present suit which is a suit for recovery of money from the industrial company cannot proceed with except with the consent of the Board. The Court had no jurisdiction to impose any condition on the industrial company while granting stay of the proceedings. Accordingly, that part of the order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,000.00as security money as condition precedent for grant of all further proceedings in the suit in question was illegal and without jurisdiction.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.