NEHAL T. BHIMJYANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had, pursuant to a public notice dtd. 27/3/2014, submitted its bid for purchase of a residential property described as "Duplex located at 10/B and 11/B, IL Palazzo CHS Ltd., 10th and 11th Floor, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai having a built-up area of 5100 sq. feet" (hereafter 'the property'). The petitioner's bid for an aggregate amount of Rs.27.30 crores was accepted by the Asset Sale Committee (hereafter 'the ASC') constituted in terms of the guidelines issued by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereafter 'the BIFR') for sale of the non-productive assets of the respondent no.2 company (M/s Saurashtra Cement Ltd ' hereafter 'SCL').

(2.) The petitioner also made a part payment of a sum of Rs.10.37 crores albeit belatedly and in tranches. However, SCL (through ASC) terminated the contract for sale of the property in favour of the petitioner and forfeited the part payment made by the petitioner. The ASC then proceeded to sell the property to respondent no.4 (M/s Malabar Coastal Holdings LLP ' hereafter 'MCHL') at a price marginally higher than the bid by the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner claims that the ASC had acted in a fraudulent manner with a view to favour MCHL. It had subverted a public sale by concluding a private transaction with MCHL. The unproductive assets of SCL (including the property) were directed to be sold by the BIFR for implementation of the scheme sanctioned under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereafter 'the SICA'). The petitioner had, accordingly, sought recourse before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereafter 'the AAIFR) as well as before the BIFR. However, all proceedings before the said authorities stood abated with the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 (hereafter 'the Repeal Act') coming into force from 1/12/2016. The petitioner claims that the abatement of the proceedings has rendered the petitioner remediless. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner challenges the amendment of Sec. 4(b) of the Repeal Act as ultra vires the Constitution of India on the ground that the repeal of the SICA has left her remediless in respect of the grievance against the actions taken by the ASC.