KARAMJIT SINGH GAHUNIA Vs. DALMIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (1) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. Mr. Chandhiok says, learned counsel for the non-applicant, states that he has no objection if the name of the defendant is changed from M/s Dalmia Industries Limited to Bharatpur Nutritional Products Limited. Application is allowed. Amended memo of parties has been filed on record. Let the same be taken on record. Application stands disposed of.

(2.) This is an application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code by the defendant-tenant. It has been contended by Mr.Sandeep Aggarwal that the suit filed by the plaintiff is for recovery of possession and recovery of mesne profits and damages. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant-defendant that defendant company has made a reference under Section 15(1) of SICA to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction on 27.2.2001 to declare the defendant company as sick industrial company and the said reference has been registered as a case by the Board being case no.108/2001. It has been contended before me that since the Board has registered a case on the reference of the defendant and has initiated enquiry under Section 16 of the SICA, the present suit is liable to be stayed under Section 22 of SICA. In support of his contentions he has relied that pursuant to the amendment in 1994 in Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 whereas words "and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security.........." were added the present suit coming within the ambit of a suit for recovery of money is to be stayed.

(3.) He has further contended that on the basis of observations made in Sirmor Sudburg Auto Ltd. Vs. Kuldip Singh Lamba 1997 (42) DRJ 421 by this court which judgment took into consideration judgment of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Vs. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals 1997 III AD SC 713, laid down that matter with regard to recovery of money was referred the trial court as court followed Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Vs. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals (supra) and held that suit for rent or arrears of rent was also a suit for recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant-defendant has further contended that the relief of recovery of money would squarely be covered under Section 22 (1) of SICA and, therefore, that part of the relief prayed in the suit be stayed.