I.C.I.C.I. LTD. Vs. Ceeta Industries Ltd. and Ors.

Appeal: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17127/1999

(From the Judgement and Order dated 29.07.1999 in APOT 583/99 of the High Court of Calcutta)

Petitioner: I.C.I.C.I. LTD.

Respondent: Ceeta Industries Ltd. and Ors.

Apeal: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17127/1999

(From the Judgement and Order dated 29.07.1999 in APOT 583/99 of the High Court of Calcutta)

Judges: B.N. KIRPAL & S. S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.

Date of Judgment: Jun 03, 2000

Mr. Dipankar. P. Gupta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Partho Banerjee, Mr.Jaideep Gupta and Mr. C.S. Ashri, Advocates for Petitioners.
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Ms. Bina Gupta, Mr. Tapesh. K. Singh, Ms. Rakhi Ray and Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Advocates for the Respondents.

SICK COMPANIES

Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985

Sections 21, 22 – Proceedings before BIFR – Method of calculating depreciation in the balance sheet changed – Challenge by the Petitioner Financial Institution – Injunction granted initially – Then vacated – Matter pending at BIFR – Appeal filed against the vacation of injunction – Division Bench of High Court holding that BIFR was the right forum to deal with the matter. Held. BIFR having rejected the case of the company there was no impediment in the suit filed by the Petitioner being proceeded with. SLP disposed of as infructuous.

ORDER
1. The Petitioner had filed a suit against the Respondent compa-ny challenging the action of the Respondent in altering the method of calculating depreciation in its balance sheet. The Single Judge had initially granted an injunction which was vacat-ed. An appeal was filed against the same. The contention of the Respondents herein was that the matter was pending before the BIFR and, therefore, the civil court had no jurisdiction to deal with the case.
2. The Division Bench in the impugned order observed that the BIFR would be the right forum where the industrial sickness of the company is to be determined. It further observed that the court could not grant an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff in view of the fact that the company had already re-ferred the matter to the BIFR.
3. Shri Dipankar P Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner informs us that the BIFR has now rejected the application of the Respondents and as far as the BIFR is concerned the matter stands concluded.
4. In this view of the matter, there is no impediment in the suit of the Petitioner proceeding in the High Court. The special leave petition has, for that reason, become infructuous.
5. The special leave petition stands disposed of accordingly.