LAWS(APH)-2008-9-39

ALIND WORKERS CONGRESS Vs. UNITED SHIPPERS LIMITED MUMBAI

Decided On September 01, 2008
ALIND WORKERS CONGRESS REP. BY ITS SECRETARY Appellant
V/S
UNITED SHIPPERS LIMITED, MUMBAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WOULD location at Hyderabad of two divisions, and the assets therein, of a Sick industrial Company registered in the State of Kerala, and the petitioner having submitted their bid for its take-over, based on which the Board of Industrial and Financial reconstruction, (for short 'the B. I. F. R'), had sanctioned a separate scheme, constitute "cause of action in part", for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra pradesh in a Writ Petition filed challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, (for short "the A. A. I. F. R"), under the Sick Industrial companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'sica'), dated 06. 02. 2007 setting aside the order of the B. I. F. R. dated 26. 07. 2005?

(2.) AN ancillary question which falls for consideration is whether, in the absence of any plea that the "cause of action", even in part, had arisen within its territorial limits, this Court would be justified in placing reliance on the list of dates and events annexed thereto, and the material documents filed therewith, to determine whether or not "cause of action" in part has arisen within its territorial limits?

(3.) THE 5th respondent herein is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office, and some of its divisions, situated in the State of Kerala. Three of its divisions i. e. Machinery division, conductor division and Material Handling division are at Hyderabad. It also has a conductor division at Hirakud in the State of Orissa. Since its net-worth had eroded, the 5th respondent made a reference, under section 15 of SICA, to the 4th respondent. The reference was registered as Case No. 93 of 1987. The 5th respondent was declared a sick company, by the B. I. F. R. on 20. 10. 1987, in terms of Section 3 (1) (o) of s. I. C. A. The B. I. F. R. had hitherto sanctioned a scheme of revival of the 5th respondent, in the year 1989, which had resulted in the 1st respondent taking over the management of the 5th respondent. In the year 1994 the b. I. F. R. had declared the said scheme of revival to have failed.