STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. DHAMPUR SUGAR LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 is a sugar company. This Sugar Company had gone before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (from hereinafter referred to as the BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequently, the Board came to a conclusion that this industry can in fact be revived and hence after a due process it framed a scheme for its revival under S.18 of the Act vide an order dated 8th January, 2008. Apart from other directions in this scheme, one of the directions was that for this sugar company the restrictions on export of molasses were removed as generally 10% of the total production of molasses has to be reserved for the consumption of industries which are making country liquor, and hence the entire production of molasses cannot be exported. It is this order by which the State of Uttarakhand is apparently aggrieved. Since an order passed by BIFR under S.18 of the Act is an appealable order, earlier the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of BIFR dated 8th January, 2008 which was dismissed by the appellate Tribunal on the grounds of limitation on 22-1-2009. As such, before the merit of the case can be discussed, it would be prudent to first examine as to whether the order passed by the appellate authority is a just and proper order? However, it must be stated here that by a subsequent amendment to this writ petition the petitioner has now challenged not only the order of the appellate Tribunal dated 22nd January, 2009 but the previous two orders of the BIFR dated 8th January, 2008 and 13th October, 2008 as well. But of these two orders later. First, the appellate Tribunal's order.

(2.) AS referred above, an order passed by the BIFR is appealable under S.25 of the Act. S.25 reads as under :

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the Sugar Factory Mr. Ravi Kiran Jain, states that the appeal has been filed on 29th December, 2008, against the order dated 8th January, 2008 of BIFR and therefore the appeal was preferred after more than eleven months. Even if the period of limitation is calculated from the date of the receipt of the order, then too the petitioner has filed the appeal against this order after 69 days'. The appeal, has to be filed within a period of 60 days. Under S.25 (1) of SICA though normally an appeal should be filed within 45 days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to the appellant, but the appellate authority may entertain any appeal after the said period of forty - five days "but not after" sixty days from the aforesaid date. Sri Jain submits that the appellate authority is not vested with the powers to condone any delay beyond a period of sixty days from the date the cause of action accrues. Since, admittedly the appeal has been filed beyond the period of 60 days, therefore, it is barred by limitation and hence the appeal has been rightly dismissed, submits the respondent.