SARABHAI MACHINERY Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is a sick undertaking and, therefore, under Clause (ii) of the Notification dated May 17, 1989, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit. No such contention was raised by the petitioner before the competent authority. In their written reply dated February 6, 1992, Annexure 'B' to this petition) the petitioner sought the benefit of Clause (iii) and not Clause (ii). The petitioner never contended that the petitioner-Company is a sick company. However, to enable the petitioner to produce the necessary order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction the matter was adjourned. The learned advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner's application under Section 15 is rejected by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Therefore, this contention would not survive.

(2.) In our order dated April 16, 1992 after considering the balance-sheet of Sarabhai Machinery Limited, which was produced on record for our perusal we have observed as under :

(3.) In view of the aforesaid fact, aid-interim relief granted by this Court is vacated. However, at the request of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, further hearing is adjourned to April 21, 1992.