VDCS ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed, inter-alia praying for quashing/setting aside the BIFR order dated 25.7.2003 passed in case No.4 of 1998. The BIFR vide its impugned order has ordered for winding up of the company holding that the company is adopting dilatory tactics to enjoy undue protection under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and is not serious in reviving the company.

(2.) Mr. Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has already settled with all the creditors and has made the payment in terms of the directions issued by BIFR except with the Operating Agency. In this case Operating Agency is Haryana Financial Corporation. As a matter of fact when this writ petition had come up AAIFR was not functioning and, therefore, certain orders were passed by this Court. On 6.8.2003 this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same was deposited.

(3.) In this matter a very short controversy has arisen on the basis of which BIFR has pronounced the impugned order. In terms of the BIFR Scheme, the petitioner has satisfied all the borrowers as is evident from the various orders passed by BIFR itself except the respondent Haryana Financial Corporation. On 10.8.2004 it was brought to our notice that the total loan which was taken by the petitioner was Rs.20,00,000/- against which a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner to the respondent. BIFR from time to time has issued directions under Section 19 of the SICA to the Operating Agency i.e. Haryana Financial Corporation that they may settle the amount of dues in terms of RBI guidelines. On the other hand, the stand of the Haryana Financial Corporation has been that they are not governed by the RBI guidelines as they have formulated their own guidelines.