Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) This petition is filed for quashing the notices issued under Section 13(2) dated 4.03.2015 by respondent No. 1, dated 10.03.2015 by respondent No. 2, Section 13(4) dated 27.07.2015 and for quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(for short, 'SARFAESI Act') and also for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus to the bank to seek their remedy before the Board For Industrial And Financial Reconstruction(For short, 'BIFR') in terms of the The Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act, 1985(for short, 'SICA Act').
(2.) In short, the case set up by the petitioner is that the decision has been taken by the BIFR on 31.12.2012 declaring the petitioner as sick company and the matter is pending before the BIFR under Section 18 of the SICA Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that 3rd proviso to Section 15 of the SICA Act cannot be availed by the bank. Initially when the notice was issued in this case, status quo regarding possession was ordered to be maintained and thereafter, the said order was allowed to continue.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has very fairly produced notification of the Ministry of Finance dated 25.11.2016, issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 1(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 (for short, 'Repeal Act'), as per which the Central Government has appointed 1.12.2016 as the date on which the provisions of the said Act would come into force. Meaning thereby, the SICA Act shall stand repealed from 1.12.2016. However, it is submitted that the petitioner has a moratorium of 180 days in terms of Section 14(C) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and prayed that the petitioner may be allowed to use the said period of 180 days as a window provided by the legislature for the redressal of his grievances.;