AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The State Government is directed to file an affidavit stating, whether two plots of land belonging to the Company in question are covered by any land use scheme prepared by the State Government, and if so, to produce the copy of the said scheme. The State Government is also directed to state in the said affidavit, if any such scheme has been prepared, under what law that scheme has been prepared. The State Government is also directed to produce the law, if there be, to that effect. In the affidavit, the State Government shall also indicate, whether the change of use of the plots of land, as was sought for by the Company before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), was permissible in terms of the scheme so prepared by the State Government. The State Government must also inform the Court in the said affidavit, whether the State Government, at any point of time, represented to BIFR that the change of use of those plots of land is not permissible in terms of land use scheme prepared by the State government, and if so, when and how such representation was made by the State Government before BIFR. Let such affidavit be filed by the State Government within four weeks as prayed for by the learned Counsel for the State.
The Company represented by Mr. Arvind Vashisth and Mr. Saurabh Bhatia, learned Advocates are present in Court and, accordingly, it shall be deemed that the company has been served. Our attention has been drawn to various orders passed by BIFR and Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR). We found that the scheme was sanctioned by BIFR for revival of the industrial company. We found that the date, by which the activities for revival were to commence, lapsed, but steps, as were required to be taken in terms of the scheme, could not be taken for some reasons or the other. We have also seen that BIFR, at one point of time, expressed opinion that the present management of the Company is non-responsive to the sanctioned scheme and, accordingly, directed publication of advertisement for the purpose of replacement of the present management of the Company. The management and the Company, as it appears to us, preferred an appeal before AAIFR, whereupon AAIFR, having accepted the reasons for inability of the management to take effective steps to implement the scheme, while setting aside the order directing advertisement to be published for finding out an alternate management, remitted the matter to BIFR for reconsideration of the scheme with certain modifications, as were indicated in the order of AAIFR, with a further direction to consider the Review Application filed by the management of the company before BIFR. It appears that BIFR, subsequent thereto, modified the scheme, but surprisingly, did not indicate the commencement date of implementation of the modified scheme, nor did it indicate the expected date when the net assets of the company would become positive. Our attention has been drawn to various orders passed by BIFR, which suggest liquidation by the company of existing debts, like the debts due to the secured creditors, workmen and to some extent unsecured creditors. But surprisingly, nothing has been brought to our notice upto now to suggest that, in fact, any action has been taken to revive the sick industrial company, i.e., the industry of the company. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the company, however, submitted that if given an opportunity to file an affidavit, his client would demonstrate that every effort has been made for revival of the company and the operating agency has also reported to that effect. One of such reports has been placed before us, which says progress has been made. We make it absolutely clear that such vague reports will not do. We want the company to establish, by pleadings and evidence, that steps have been taken for actual revival of the industrial company. For that purpose, we are granting four weeks� time to the company to file an affidavit.
Respondent No. 5 is also directed to file an affidavit, stating what it did until date pertaining to the plots of land in question, on the basis of the requests made by the company in that regard. The other respondents are also permitted to give their response, if they are so advised, within the time as mentioned above.
List this matter six weeks hence. Advance copies of these affidavits, shall be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who shall be entitled to deal with the averments made therein by filing a rejoinder affidavit or rejoinder affidavits.
In the event, the State wants the petitioner to disclose anything further, they may highlight the same in their affidavits to be filed and it is expected, in the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner will deal with the same.
Parties to the petition are restrained from speaking to the press in relation to this matter without express leave of the Court.