AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners. On 1st March, 2019 adjournment was obtained by prayer therefor made by respondent nos. 1 and 5.
Mr. Mitra submits, there be made interim order, at least, in terms of prayer (a), to effect that there be status quo in respect of yet undisclosed assignment of debts of respondent no.1 (INCAB). He refers to order dated 14th May, 2009 in, inter alia, Special Leave to Appeal (C) 11598-11600 of 2009 where following was said.
" In these cases one of the controversy appears to be whether impugned assignments are valid in law? The High Court vide impugned order has come to the conclusion that the petitioners' proposal should not be kept before BIFR.
Since it is a question of revival of the Company, we are of the view that keeping all questions of law expressly open, the BIFR should be allowed to consider all the three proposals for revival. While doing so the BIFR will decide the matter uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order of the High Court. At the preliminary stage we are informed that the proposals will be vetted by the operating agency, namely, State Bank of India. After the preliminary stage gets over, the matters will go to BIFR. Before the BIFR the workers who are also secured creditors will also be heard. The BIFR will decide the matter keeping aside the question relating to the validity of the impugned assignment, which question will be decided in SLP if need arises."
In this connection he refers to order dated 12th April, 2006 passed by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in Case no.390/1999 (In Re. M/s. Incab Industries Ltd.) whereby time was given to parties, who had already submitted their proposals to negotiate with secured creditors, workers and others, for submission of improved rehabilitation proposals to Operating Agency (OA) SBI. Secured creditors and OA were directed to examine capability, experience and financial resources of scheme, for report to reach BIFR within eight weeks from that day. Mr. Mitra submits, this order was carried in appeal to AAIFR and confirmed. There was challenge carried to Delhi High Court which ended up in Supreme Court.
It appears from order dated 14th May, 2009 (supra), Supreme Court had directed consideration of three proposals for revival by BIFR, keeping aside question relating to validity of impugned assignment, which question will be decided in the Special Leave Petition, if need arises. Supreme Court by later order dated 11th November, 2014 dismissed, as withdrawn, the Special Leave Petitions. Hence, at this stage, it appears BIFR was to consider the proposals on a check imposed, of keeping aside question relating to validity of assignment. That check has been removed.
List on 12th April, 2019 for consideration of passing interim order or disposal.
Petitioners will obtain and serve copy of this order upon respondent nos. 1 and 5.