- (1.) DEFECTS ignored.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the company in liquidation in Company Petition No. 5 of 1999 is M/s. Raj Hans Steel Limited. The recommendation was sent by the B.I.F.R. to this Court for winding up of the company wherein a revival proposal was submitted but on objection of the appellant, it was found by the Company Judge in order dated 25.06.2010 that rival bidder D.V.P.L. is trying to acquire the company through back door method and this fact cannot be ignored and, therefore, rejected the revival petition submitted by the said company in liquidation. Against this order passed by the Company Judge dated 25.06.2010, a Company Appeal No. 2 of 2010 was filed by one of the Directors of the Company in liquidation, Rajiv Sachdeva. The Division Bench dismissed said company appeal vide order dated 12.08.2010 and upheld the finding of the Company Judge refusing to sanction the scheme of rehabilitation. Against these orders, Director of the Company preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 27210/2010 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the consent order that the matter needs to be remitted to B.I.F.R. and after hearing the parties, Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered that B.I.F.R. will decide whether the creditors of the company have been paid off and, if so, whether the rehabilitation package proposed by the appellant is viable, is to be decided by t he B.I.F.R. Will consider and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of order. Therefore, the matter went before the B.I.F.R. for consideration of the revival proposal of the company. When the matter again came up for consideration before the B.I.F.R., the appellant who was one the bidders for the asset of the company in company petition proceedings, raised certain objections whereupon an objection was raised by the company in liquidation/its Director that appellant has no locus standi and, therefore, cannot be heard. Upon this objection, the B.I.F.R., in its order passed in Case No. 164 of 1989 with M.A. No. 135/BC/2011 on 11.04.2011 ordered that since the appellant was a party before the High Court and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and have deposited Rs.50 lacs in response to advertisement ordered by B.I.F.R., the principles of natural justice demand that they should be heard and, therefore, deserves to be impleaded. Against this order of the B.I.F.R., an appeal has been preferred by the company/its Director raising objection of locus standi of the present appellant which is pending before the appellate authority and according to learned counsel for the appellant, the arguments have already been heard and judgment has been reserved on 14.05.2012. It is also submitted that it is clear from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the B.I.F.R. to consider the proposal given by the appellant and to find out whether it is viable and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not remanded the matter to the B.I.F.R. so as to give it a fresh jurisdiction to accept new proposal after rejection of the earlier proposal for which matter was remitted to the B.I.F.R. It is submitted that in the order dated 11.04.2011, the B.I.F.R. clearly observed that the proposal given by the company was not fully tied up and was not accompanied by ABS and even the provisional balancesheet was not authenticated by the Board or by the Chartered Accountant and there are so may objections. Then the B.I.F.R. directed the company to submit a fully tied up rehabilitation scheme. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the B.I.F.R. had no jurisdiction to call for a fresh rehabilitation scheme and had only jurisdiction, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order, to consider the rehabilitation scheme submitted by the company earlier and if that is liable to be rejected, then in that situation, the proceeding pending before this Court on the recommendation of the B.I.F.R. will continue wherein the petitioner may be a successful bidder for getting the company.
(3.) AGAINST fresh permission to the company for submitting the fresh rehabilitation scheme, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the A.A.I.F.R. which is also pending wherein hearing has already been completed and order is reserved on the same day i.e., 14.05.2012. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at this belated stage when the matter was pending before the A.A.I.F.R. only for pronouncement of order, this Court should not have entertained any application in Company Petition No. 5 of 1999 and passed the order dated 29.06.2012 which is impugned and should not have held that the appellant has no locus standi. It is submitted that, it appears, the Court has passed the order only under the impression that because of the presence of the appellant, the proceeding has been delayed whereas the order of impleading the appellant as party before the B.I.F.R. was passed by the B.I.F.R. and that was challenged by the respondents. Even otherwise, mere on the ground of delay, a lawful order cannot be ignored and power of appellate authorities cannot be usurped at the stage of pronouncement of order.;