ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. S. KUMARS NATIONWIDE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This entire bunch of Petitions have been filed by different Petitioners seeking to wind up the Respondent Company on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. I have been informed that out of this entire group, Company Petition Nos.698 of 2014, 739 of 2014, 79 of 2015, 265 of 2015, 674 of 2015 and 964 of 2015 have not yet been admitted.

(2.) Even though no affidavit in reply has been filed by the Respondent Company disputing the claim of many of the Petitioners on merits, one composite affidavit dated 22 June, 2016, has been filed inter alia contending that the Respondent Company has filed a reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ("BIFR") and which was registered on 10 December, 2015, and therefore, these Petitions cannot proceed in view of the bar contained in Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short "SICA, 1985").

(3.) In contrast, it is the contention of the Petitioners that by virtue of the 2nd proviso to Section 15(1) of SICA, 1985, the reference filed by the Respondent Company before the BIFR is non-est in the eyes of law and, therefore, there is no question of any protection being granted to the Respondent Company under Section 22 of SICA, 1985. According to the Petitioners, the protection under Section 22 can be availed of by the Respondent Company only once a valid reference is made before the BIFR. Since the filing of a reference before the BIFR was barred by virtue of the 2nd proviso to Section 15(1) of SICA, there was no valid reference filed by the Respondent Company and consequently, there is no impediment in these Company Petitions being heard and finally disposed of.