AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the interim order of the learned single Judge dated 1.3.2004. 2. None
appears for the appellants although the name of M/s. Kovi Ganesan and T.K.S. Gandhi has been shown in the cause list. We have heard Mr.
P.L.Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 Industrial Credit Investment Corporation of India Bank.
The appellants filed the writ petition with the following prayer:
For the reasons stated in the accompanying writ the petitioner prays that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of declaration or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature and declare that entertaining of any complaints and processing the same by the first to sixth
respondents and by all persons working under them and their respective departments in relation to the claims in respect of loans, fixed deposits and
other dues initiated by various courts and Fora payable by the petitioners companies and its directors and officers as illegal, ultra vires and void
pending disposal of BIFR proceedings.
From the facts of the case it appears that ICICI Bank initiated criminal proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the writ
petitioners and its directors in C.C. No. 1098/200 1 by filing a criminal complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai. On that criminal complaint process was issued u/s 204 Cr.P.C., the trial was conducted, witnesses were examined and only
orders were to be pronounced when at that stage the petitioners/appellants filed W.P. No.33166 of 2003 and out of the interlocutory order in the
said writ petition the present appeal arises.
The submission before the learned single Judge was that since the petitioners/appellants had applied under the Sick Industrial Companies
(Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are barred by section 22 of the aforesaid Act. We do not agree.
In our opinion the writ petition was wholly misconceived and ought not to have been entertained at all. Section 22(1) of the said Act has nothing
to do with a criminal prosecution. Section 22(1) states:-
Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry u/s 16 is pending or any scheme referred to u/s 17 is under preparation or consideration or
a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal u/s 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything
contained in the Companies Act, 1956, or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other
instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or
the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof and no suit for the recovery of
money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the
industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the appellate authority.
A perusal of the above provisions shows that it has only prohibited the proceedings for winding up of an industrial company or for execution,
distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver and suits for recovery of money or
for enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of loans or advance granted to the industrial company
except with the consent of the Board or the appellate authority.
Thus, a mere perusal of section 22(1) shows that it has nothing to do with criminal prosecution. Similarly section 22A has also nothing to do with
a criminal prosecution.
It appears that subsequently the learned single Judge vacated the interim order. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in BSI Ltd. and
Anr. etc. v. Gift Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. etc. 2000 (1) Crimes 261 this writ appeal has no merit and it is dismissed. We further direct the
learned Magistrate concerned to complete the proceedings before him expeditiously. No costs. Consequently WAMP No.1758 /2004 is also
dismissed.