ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) The Court :- Mr. Saha, learned senior advocate, appears on behalf of the applicants in CA 905 of 2016. He submits, there be an interim order made in terms of prayers (a) and (b) in the Judge's Summons. This is necessary since one of the joint Special Officers has since died.
(2.) Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned senior advocate, appears on behalf of the company, that is, Baranagar Jute Factory PLC and submits, no interim order should be made as the applicants have no locus standi to have made the application. He refers to summary record of proceedings of hearing before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, Bench-I (BIFR) held on 16th August, 2010 to point out that his client had filed Misc. Application no.472 dated 6th August, 2010 praying, inter alia, deletion of the names of the applicants from the list of Directors of the Company. The BIFR recorded that the changes and submissions were taken on record to dispose of the application. According to Mr. Mitra, thereby the names of the applicants stood deleted as Directors of the Company.
(3.) The applicants subsequently filed a writ petition in this Court which resulted in order dated 25th January, 2011 by which a learned Single Judge held that the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act , 1985 [SICA] is not applicable to the company, it being incorporated outside India. An appeal was preferred from this judgement. An Appellate Bench of this Court by order dated 19th October, 2012 took the view that on a purposive interpretation of the provisions of SICA, the said Act would be applicable to the company. The dispute, on the question of applicability of the said Act to the company, was then carried to the Supreme Court along with other disputes. The Supreme Court by its judgement dated 23rd September, 2013 noticed, as Mr. Mitra submits, that the two applicants had made the reference in respect of the company before the BIFR in the year 2004. The BIFR framed a scheme and notified immediate implementation thereof. The applicants then filed the writ petition as aforesaid challenging the applicability of the said Act to the company.;