D C M HUNDAI LIMITED Vs. POLLIVAKKAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this petition averred that ever since the inception of the company, the company had been incurring losses and thereby becoming a sick industry and it was also due to free availability of cheap containers from China. Since the petitioner company become sick, proceedings were initiated under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short 'sica' ). The BIFR has passed an order dated 28. 07. 1998 wherein it has been ordered among other things that the first respondent-local body was directed to consider levying reasonable demand of property tax similar to the demands raised by them in respect of other industrial units in the same area and not to take any coercive action for recovery of their dues pending crystallization of the dues as per rehabilitation. The BIFR further directed the first respondent to reconsider their demand in respect of the petitioner company with reference to the demands raised by them in respect of other industrial units viz. , Hindustan Motors etc. in their jurisdiction and take a rational view in respect of the demand from the company and the first respondent was also directed not to take any coercive action without prior permission of the BIFR.

(2.) THE first respondent has initiated coercive action including by way of attachment for recovery of property tax arrears for the period from 1996-1997 to 1999-2000 against the petitioner company. Therefore, the petitioner company filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 12648 of 1997 praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents1 and 2 herein from taking any coercive proceedings for recovery of the property tax in respect of the petitioner's factory for the period from 1996-1997 to 1999-2000 or by way of any attachment etc. Pending disposal of the suit, an application for ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from initiating coercive proceedings was taken up wherein, a conditional order was passed and challenging the vires of the same, the petitioner company preferred W. A. No. 2051 of 1999.

(3.) WHEN the writ appeal came up for hearing, a Division Bench of this Court has taken up the main writ petition itself for disposal along with the writ appeal.