RAYALASEEMA PAPER MILLS LTD Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of ccertiorari challenging the orders of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi, dated 16-12-1999 admitting Appeal No. 166 of 1999 filed by respondent Nos.3 to 15 herein and granting stay and the order dated 20-1-2000 rejecting the objections raised by the writ petitioner.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are set out as hereunder: The writ petitioner is a company incorporated on 20-8-1974 in Kumool Town in Andhra Pradesh and the company did well till 1985 and on account of financial crunch it was closed down by the end of 1989 and the company was declared as a 'sick company' by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR' for short) under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (Act 1 of 1986) (for short 'Act 1 of 1986'). BIFR appointed IDBI as the operating agency for the purpose of revival of the company. IDBI took steps for revival of the company through change of management. During 1994 the petitioner-company came forward with concrete proposals for take over and rehabilitation of the company and the petitioner-company deposited Rs.8 crores as a sort of caution deposit along with take over bid. BIFR has sanctioned the scheme in favour of the writ petition-company on 7-8-1995. The petitioner-company took back all the workers into their respective jobs. The new promotees invested about Rs.106 crores into the bank out of which Rs.33 crores was paid to the financial institutions/ banks and about Rs.45 crorers for renovation and additions in the plant and equipment and about Rs.25 crores towards payment of pressing creditors, arrears of workers, statutory payments and pre-operative expenses. IDBI is an operating agency and other banks/institutions considered a modified rehabilitation package and recommended to BIFR by sanction of the modified scheme. The BIFR in its review meeting on 10-2-1999 directed the IDBI to convene a joint meeting of all the banks and financial institutions for the purpose of submitting revised proposals. Accordingly a modified scheme was submitted to BIFR by IDBI after all the banks and financial institutions unanimously supporting the same. The BIFR during the hearing on 2nd August, 1999 sanctioned the modified scheme and issued certain directions for the purpose of implementing the modified scheme. BIFR dictated the directions in the open Court in the presence of all the financial institutions which agreed for implementing the modified scheme. As a consequence of the order of BIFR writ petitioner herein submitted a letter dated 3-8-1999 to respondents 3 to 15 to provide the required working capital and the 3rd respondent was requested to take intitiative as leader of the consortium for sanction of the working capital as directed by BIFR and submitted proposals for working capital facilities. In short, it was agreed that the financial institution will implement the modified scheme. Strangely the petitioner received a communication from the 1st respondent informing that Appeal No. 166 of 1999 was filed by respondents 3 to 15 against BIFR's order dated 2-8-1999 in Case No.100 of 1999 and the Appellate Authority admitted the appeal on 16-12-1999 and stayed the directions in Paragraph 23 (j) of the order of BIFR till the disposal of the appeal. The writ petitioner appeared on 20-1-2000 before the Appellate Authority and contended that the appeal was liable to be dismissed in limini on the ground that the appeals was not filed within time. The limitation for filing the appeal is 45 days from the date of issue of the order and respondents 3 to 15 did not apply for the certified copy of the order and did not enclose the same along with the appeal and the appeal was filed on 4-11-1999, i.e., after 95 days. It was also brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority that respondents 3 to 15 have mislead the Appellate Authority by a false statement that a copy of the proceedings dated 2-8-1999 was received by them on 21-9-1999 and the appeal was being field within 45 days from 21-9-1999 and therefore the appeal is within limitation time. The writ petitioner contended before the Appellate Authority that respondents 3 to 15 did not apply for a certified copy of the order and that the order was received in the ordinary course on 21-9-1999 and the appeal was filed treating that copy as a certified copy. It is the case of the writ petitioner that for the purpose of getting a certified copy, respondents 3 to 15 ought to have made an application for a certified copy and after receiving the certified copy respondents 3 to 15 are entitled to file the appeal after deducting the time taken by the authorities in issuing the certified copy. The 1st respondent herein has rejected the objections by its order dated 20-1-2000 treating the copy served on respondents 3 to 15 as certified copy and has erroneously held that the appeal is within time. Assailing the order of the Appellate Authority in admitting the appeal and rejecting the objections and granting stay, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that BIFR has passed the order in the presence of all the parties on 2-8-1999 and admittedly respondents 3 to 15 have not applied for the certified copy but filed the appeal on 4-11-1999. He placed reliance on Section 25 of Act 1 of 1986 read with the procedure for filing appeals before AAIFR which makes it very clear that certified copy of the order appealed against has to be filed along with the appeal. It is his contention that respondents 3 to 15 have presented the appeal along with the order copy received by them in the normal course and they have falsely represented to the Appellate Authority that the copy received by them is the certified copy and got the appeal registered as though the appeal was filed within time.