prpri Dues of Petitioning creditor relating to period beyond scheme under implementation by Board and not forming part of scheme, bar u/s. 22(1) of SICA does not apply Dues of Petitioning creditor relating to period beyond scheme under implementation by Board and not forming part of scheme, bar u/s. 22(1) of SICA does not apply

Case Law Details

Case Name : Kothari Metals Ltd. Vs. Indian steel & Wire Products Ltd. (Calcutta High Court)
Appeal Number : (2008) 145 Comp. Cas 504 (Cal)
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :

RELEVANT EXTRACTS :

The Petitioners supplied goods to the Respondent company and part payments were made by the Respondent company to all the Petitioners except V.

On a reference to the Board for Industrial and financial Reconstruction (BIFR) by the company, a scheme of rehabilitation was sanctioned and the management of the company was taken over under the directions of the Board. The scheme sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction failed to reflect the dues of the Petitioners.

In a winding up petition, the Petitioners contended that the company had failed to pay the balance amount despite service of statutory notice to it. The company contended that the present management could not be held responsible for the transactions that took place prior to the takeover of the company by the new management and the Petitioners’ claims were barred u/s.22(1) of the Sick Industrial companies (Special Provisions) act, 1985, (SICA) since the scheme of rehabilitation was under implementation.

The Court observed that if the BIFR does not provide for payment to some creditors whose dues are reflected in the sick industrial company’s books, it cannot be concluded that such creditors need not be paid at all, unless there is specific provision therefore which is subject to appeal and judicial review. An ordinary right of a supplier to receive payment for his wares cannot be deemed to have evaporated upon his claim not being mentioned in the scheme sanctioned by the Board.

The Court, admitting the petitions, held that the Petitioners’ claims were not covered under the sanctioned scheme of the Board. The claims were for the period beyond that covered by the sanctioned scheme. The embargo u/s.22(1) of SICA was not applicable to the claims of the Petitioners. The Petitioners had relied on unimpeachable documents in support of individual claims which were not questioned by the Respondent company. The company directed to secure eight claims (except in the case of petitioner V), by furnishing cash security, which would stand relegated to the suits that may be instituted by the relevant Petitioners. In the event of failure to furnish security, the petitions were to be advertised. In the case of V, the company was to pay the principal sum of Rs.2,93,104/ – together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the statutory notice failing which the petition was to stand admitted.

NF

More Under Company Law

Search Posts by Date

July 2021
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031