Bijitendra Mohan Mitra, J. - (1.) The instant revisional application is directed against Order No. 6 dated 11.9.1996 passed by the Court of Assistant District Judge, Purulia in Money Execution Case No. 2 of 1996 and the concerned Court after having heard the parties has granted the stay of execution on furnishing a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 9,20,805.35 p. by 17.9.1996. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has come to this Court. The petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure 'A' and it appears from the perusal therefrom that pursuant to the provisions of section 15(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1986 Damodar Cement & Slag Ltd. made a reference to the Board for determination and an enquiry was Held on 21.4.1994 wherefrom it was Held that the company had become a sick industrial company in terms of section 3(1)(d) of the Act and IDBI was acting as operating agency. It further appears from the perusal of the said Annexure that the concerned bench was satisfied that all the parties had given their consent under section 19(2) of SICA to the various provisions of the draft scheme and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 18(4) read with section 19(3), the scheme was sanctioned. It is necessary to make a reference to section 22 of the said Act which, inter alia, provides that where in respect of an industrial company an enquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation, no proceeding either for winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or like against any other property or appointment of the Receiver can be passed therein. In the impugned order the concerned Court has opined that there is no declaration as per provisions of section 22 of the said Act with regard to the judgment debtor company by reference to provision of section 22(4) of the said Act. In the wake of the said proposition as formulated by the concerned Court, a reference can be made to the Federal Bank Ltd. v. Hanuman Jute Mills Ltd., reported in (1994)1 Cal LJ page 85 wherein it has been Held that there has to be some evidence to show that enquiry has commenced and when some tangible step is taken for making the enquiry that section 22(1) comes into play. A further reference may be made to the case of Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Jayanta Kar, 1997 WBLR (Cal) 17 : (1996)2 Cal LJ page 247 where it has been Held that from perusal of section 22(1) of the Act, it appears that there is conferment of a right on the industrial companies whose enquiry is binding or a scheme duly sanctioned and it is in operation whereby no suit for recovery of money shall lie against the said company. In view of section 22(1) of the Act it is evident that the Court had no jurisdiction to impose any condition on the industrial company while granting stay of the proceeding. A direction of deposit of an amount as security money as condition precedent for grant of stay of all further proceedings in the suit in question was illegal and without jurisdiction. Against the backdrop of the said decision with regard to the ratio of law, declaration has insisted upon may not be of germane significance where steps are taken for implementation of the scheme and in the present case in exercise of the powers conferred under section 18(4) read with section 19(3), the following scheme has been sanctioned. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of section 22(3) of the Act, the obligations and/or liabilities in terms of financial dues shall remain suspended upto the period of ceiling as specified and the same may be made enforceable with such adoptation and in such manner as may be specified by the Board of industrial reconstruction within the meaning of the Act known as Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1986, the opposite party can approach the Board as constituted under said Act for such adoptation so that its dues may be made enforceable but the discretion has got to be exercised by the Board. Till that discretion is exercised, there must be a stay of all further proceedings in the Money Execution Case and the concerned Court cannot impose the terms of Bank guarantee as a pre-requisite condition for grant of stay. Therefore, the impugned order stands superseded by the grant of a stay of the connected execution proceeding without any condition of (Whatsoever nature and the opposite party is given leave to approach the concerned Board to have his claim enforced with necessary adoptation as per its direction.
(2.) In that view of the matter, the impugned order stands modified and it substituted by the instant order and the same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the revisional application succeeds on contest. Revisional Application succeeds.;