ZENITH LIMITED Vs. GRAND FOUNDRY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition had been admitted by an order dated 10th July, 1998. The claim of petitioner was based upon an Inter Corporate Deposit dated 3rd November, 1995 for Rs.50, 00, 000/. The company had made part payment of Rs.27, 92, 800/. It is the case of petitioner that an amount of Rs.25, 00, 000/ towards principal alongwith interest at 36% was due and payable by the company and during the pendency of the petition, a further amount of Rs.1, 00, 000/ has been paid by the company. An appeal was filed challenging the order of admission and that appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 3rd August, 1998.

(2.) The company filed a reference to Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), viz., Case No.196 of 1998. After BIFR took the reference on file, the company took out a company application no.475 of 1998 seeking stay of publication because the reference was registered in BIFR. By an order dated 6th August, 1998, the company application was allowed and consequently, publication was stayed. Therefore, the petition though admitted, has not been published.

(3.) The BIFR sanctioned a Rehabilitation Scheme for 7 years from 31st March, 2013 to 31st March, 2020 for implementation by all concerned under Section 18 of Sick Industrial companies Act (SICA). Once the Scheme is sanctioned, as provided in Section 18(8) of SICA, it shall be binding upon all the creditors. Under the Scheme, the claim of petitioner herein was settled at Rs.5, 42, 000/ approximately 22.6% of its claim. This amount was arrived at par with other unsecured corporate lenders. As provided in clause 7.3 (i) of the Scheme, copy whereof is annexed to an affidavit of one Kiran Jangla affirmed on 22nd March, 2018, this amount of Rs.5, 42, 000/ was to be paid within six months of sanction of Scheme. Six months would have expired on 6th March, 2016 since the date of sanction of the Scheme is 7th September, 2015. Admittedly, this amount has not been paid and in effect, there is a contravention by the company of this Scheme. Mr. Dubey, counsel for petitioner, therefore, is seeking winding up of the company.