RALSON INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. ADHUNIK TRANSPORT ORGANISATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review application is filed seeking review of the order dated 10.09.2012 passed in CM (M) 1010/2012 directed against the order dated 6.08.2012 of Addl. District Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner was allowed, subject to deposit of 50 % of the suit amount.

(2.) THE present application is filed seeking review on the ground that the petitioner company was entitled of benefits under Section 22 of the Sick Industries Companies Act, 1985 (for short the 'SICA'), which stipulates that no coercive action could be taken against the sick company. It is submitted that the imposition of condition of deposit of 50% of the suit amount was contrary to the provisions of Section 22 of SICA, and thus, the order of this court dated 10.09.2012, whereby the condition of deposit of 50% of the suit amount was maintained, may be recalled.

(3.) THERE being no credible admission by the petitioner of the amount in the present suit, in view of the aforesaid decision in Saketh India Ltd. (supra), no permission is required under Section 22 of SICA to continue the present suit. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raheja Universal Ltd. (supra) is that the proceedings, which are affected by Section 22 (1) of the SICA are the proceedings in the nature of execution, distress or the like, and that it was to depend upon the facts of each case as to whether the suit was hit by Section 22. In other words, all suits including that of recovery are not hit by Section 22 (1) of the SICA, but, only those suits which have the effect of execution, distress or like action against the properties of sick company, which would be hit by this provision. In a simple suit for recovery of money where the properties of sick company are not threatened by the proceedings including the interim ones such as appointment of receiver, execution, distress or the like, such suits could continue without the permission under Section 22. In the present suit for recovery, it cannot be said that the suit is of a nature which has the impact of or threat to the properties of the petitioner to affect the scheme of its revival. Thus, the present suit being the simple suit of recovery under Order 37 CPC, would not be hit by the provision of Section 22 of the SICA. There is no cogent reason warranting review of the said order. The review application along with the miscellaneous applications stand dismissed.