Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) THE first petitioner claims to be a union representing some of the workmen of the company. A rival faction of the workers of the company has seriously questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain the proceedings.
(2.) KANORIA Jute and Industries Ltd. (the company) was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) when the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, was in its infancy. It is a matter of concern that for the next 22 years the company has languished before the Board though proceedings have been had before the appellate authority and also before this court. The BIFR recommended under Section 20(1) of the said Act of 1985 that the company be wound up. Several orders passed in the proceedings including one by the appellate authority were carried in W.P. No. 8237 (W) of 2006 and W.P. No. 7220 (W) of 2007 before this Court which culminated in an order of June 27, 2008 (Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd. Sangrami Shramik Union v. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, (2009) 149 Comp Cas 555). The order of the learned single judge of this Court set aside an order of July 20, 2005, passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAFIR) and an order dated December 31, 2002, passed by the BIFR. The BIFR was directed to reconsider "the question of revival of the company". For such purpose, the order stipulated that the BIFR should give "all parties" reasonable opportunity to submit their proposals and schemes, "and after making a detailed inquiry it shall explore the possibility of approving a scheme for revival of the company". The BIFR was left free to make necessary orders imposing conditions on any party or seeking securities.
(3.) THE matter was thereafter taken up by the BIFR and following the meeting before it held on September 2, 2008, it made an order directing the operating agency, IFCI, to issue a notice for change of management under Section 18 of the said Act of 1985. The further directions in the order required parties who submitted any proposal to deposit 25 per cent, of the cost of the scheme with the operating agency to establish their bona fides and the seriousness of their proposal. The present promoters were also left free to give a proposal for the revival of the company. Incidental directions were given for the operating agency to allow interested parties to obtain information regarding the company and its assets and the operating agency was required to make a preliminary examination of all the proposals received pursuant to the directions.;