Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court in President J.K. Synthetics Mazdoor Union, Kota vs. Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., has reiterated that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) has no competence to issue directions under Section 22A of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, to a company that is not a sick industrial company. Certain directions like not to dispose of the assets were issued by the BIFR against M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. (APPL), which was affirmed by Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial (AAIFR). The said order was set aside by the Rajasthan High Court holding that the BIFR and the AAIFR do not have jurisdiction to issue directions to a company, which is not a sick industrial company under Section 22 A of the Act. On an appeal, the apex court bench comprising Justice Anil R Dave and Justice L Nageswara Rao, referring to UP State Sugar Corporation Ltd vs UP State Sugar Corporation Karamchari Association and Anr., observ...

In the matter of M/S MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. & ANR.  Vs BIFR & ORS., by  a judgment dated 29 Jan 2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 prevails over the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to the extent of inconsistency therewith. The judgment has given in the context of a rather convoluted matter wherein petitions and appeals have been filed before several High Courts, DRTs and DRAT, primarily due to the difference in the opinion of various courts of law on primacy of several important Acts having Non Obstante clauses. The Hon'ble court in a 32 page judgement, the court stated that the following two questions which arise on the facts of this case::- (1) Whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 prevails over the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1...

Madras High Court Asset Reconstruction vs The Official Liquidator on 18 April, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18/04/2006 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.A.P.SHAH, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN O.S.A.No. 214 of 2005 and O.S.A.No.215 of 2005 and C.M.P.Nos.15340 to 15343 of 2005 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, Rep. by its Vice President, 17th Floor, Express Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..Appellant in both the appeals. -Vs- The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras as the liquidator of SIV Industries Ltd. (in liquidation) ..Respondent in both the appeals. PRAYER: Original Side Appeals filed under Order 36 Rule II of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 05.07.2005 made in Company Application Nos.712 and 713 of 2005 in C.P.No.17 of 2004. For Appellant :: Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel For M/s.Rangarajan ...

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 5225 OF 2008 KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. …. APPELLANT VERSUS M/S ARIHANT THREADS LTD. & ORS. …. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT S. A. BOBDE, J. 1. This appeal is placed before us by way of a reference, made by a two-Judge Bench of this Court, C.K. Thakker and Altamas Kabir, JJ. which heard the matter on an earlier occasion and held that the appeal deserves to be allowed and that the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside. In view of a difference of opinion having arisen on the interpretation of Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 1 Page 2 `RDDB' Act) the matter has been referred for decision to this Bench by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. 2. The present appeal is preferred by KSL & Industries Ltd. (`appellant' for short) against the final Judgment an...