WEIZMANN LIMITED Vs. KEDIA DISTILLERIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE under Rules 147 and 148 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (O.S.) Rules, 1980 is granted to the defendants to take out the Notice of Motion in terms of the draft Notice of Motion handed in. Notice of Motion returnable forthwith. Plaintiffs waive service of Notice of Motion.

(2.) AN identical Notice of Motion between the same parties was decided on 17-2-1999. The facts have been noticed in the aforesaid order in extenso. After considering the matter at length it was held that an order having been passed under sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", suspending all rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities under the contract, the Receiver shall have to maintain status quo till 25th April, 1999. That was the date till the order of the B.I.F.R. was operative under sub-Section (3) of Section 22 of the Act. This matter was carried in Appeal being Appeal No.448 of 1999. The Division Bench vide its order dated May 5, 1999 observed that the question sought to be raised by the appellant has become academic for the reason that the BIFR had not granted extension beyond 25-4-1999. In view of the fact that there was no extension of the order, the present Notice of Motion has been taken out. However, the defendants have attached an order of the BIFR dated 14th May, 1999 to the affidavit in reply wherein the operation of the earlier order dated 25-1-99 has been extended for a further period of three months. Thus, today an order under sub-Section (3) of Section 22 of the Act is in operation. For the reasons stated in my order dated 17-2-1999, this Notice of Motion is also disposed of with the observation that the Receiver shall maintain status quo as of today till the expiry of the extension of time granted by the order dated 14th May, 1999.

(3.) IT transpires that the aforesaid decision has been given in an appeal from a Chamber Summons. The subject matter of the Chamber Summons and the appeal pertain to the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act. However, the Division Bench considered the ambit and scope of Section 22(3) and (4) of the Act. In my view, what has been held by the Division Bench is not contrary to the view taken by this Court on 17-2-1999. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by Mr.Samdani. I have, however, dealt with the aforesaid submissions to avoid any controversy in the Appeal Court as to whether or not the aforesaid submissions have been made. Mr.Samdani wants to raise some additional points. I am unable to accede to this request. In view of the above the Notice of Motion is disposed of in the above terms. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court. Certified copy expedited.