S.K.KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the contents of the company petition.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Board') in the Case No. 59 of 1998 vide its order dated April 22, 2003, M/s. Thar Cements Ltd., In re in terms of section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, (for short, 'the Act, 1985') has already recommended for winding up of the company aforesaid. I fail to see any justification in the approach of the ICICI Bank Ltd. to file this winding up petition. I am of the considered opinion that it is a wastage of the public money as well as this act of the bank put unnecessary burden of work on the court which is already overburdened. Instead of filing this petition, the bank could have supported the recommendation made by the Board for winding up of the respondent -company. The bank is not an ordinary litigant. Before filing of a petition in the court, it has to examine the matter and not to file the application for the sake of filing thereof. This is what precisely has been done in the present case.
(3.) AS regards to the second prayer made in the application, it is suffice to say it is premature at this stage. It is to be stated at the cost of repetition that it was avoidable, uncalled for and unnecessary petition.;