PARVATHI MILLS Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 33704 of 2004. The petitioner is one of the units of National Textile Corporation, a Government of India undertaking. The unit had become a Sick Industrial undertaking as defined in the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'SICA', for short. Under the provisions of the Act, on a reference being made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), the company was declared as a sick industrial undertaking by order dated 12.01.1993. Accordingly, an operating agency was appointed, a scheme was prepared and finally after hearing all parties, the scheme was approved by the BIFR on 07.02.2002. A copy of the sanctioned scheme is Ext. P1. Subsequently, the first respondent issued Exhibits P5, P7, P8, P10, P11, P13 and P14 demand notices and attachment notices against the appellant for realization of their dues which were in default. It was challenging the aforesaid demand notices and attachment notices the appellant filed a Writ Petition. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing the appellant to pay the amounts that are due within three months. It was challenging this judgment, the appeal is filed.

(2.) WE heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions made. The provisions of the SICA, provides for rehabilitation of Sick Industrial Companies, by way of implementation of schemes sanctioned by the BIFR. For the effective implementation of the scheme, provision has also made in Section 22 of the Act for suspension of legal proceedings against such companies also. However, a reading of Section 22 shows that where in respect of an industrial company like the appellant, Section 22 will be attracted only when a sanctioned scheme is under implementation and in such a case, no proceedings for the winding up of the company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof [and no suit for recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company] shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority. In other words, the appellant can claim the benefit of Section 22 only if it is shown that Exhibit P1 sanctioned scheme is under implementation.