DEWAN BAHADUR RAMGOPAL MILLS LIMITED Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction on 13/04/1999 in Appeal No.144/98 has been challenged in this writ petition. Counters have been filed. The matter has been argued in detail. One of the contentions of the respondents was that similar matter had been taken up in the Delhi High Court which was dismissed and later on an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court which was withdrawn with permission to file a review before the Delhi High Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that review has been filed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents was that since the Delhi High Court was ceased of the matter therefore this Court should not go into entertaining this writ petition. I have seen the copy of the writ petition which was pending before the Delhi High Court and also the order passed by the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court passed the order on 14-10-1998. The order against which the present writ petition is filed is of 13-4-1999, therefore I am of the view that this Court is not barred from hearing the writ petition challenging the order of 1st respondent dated 13-4-1999 which was not subject matter either in the writ petition before the Delhi High Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) Many contentions were raised but this Court is confining, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, to only one issue relating to the question of limitation which was raised before the 1st respondent and which was accepted. The orders of Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction thereinafter referred as BIFR) against which the appeal was preferred were passed by BIFR on 28-5-1997, 12-8-1997 and 1-6-1998 and the appeal was filed on 26/11/1998. The first respondent found that the appeal was time barred. This finding needs to be tested on the strength of relevant provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 thereinafter referred as 'the Act')- Section 18 of the Act lays down the mode in which the scheme is prepared and sanctioned for sick industries. Sub-section 3(a) to Section 18 lays down:

(3.) I think, the interpretation sought to be placed on Section 18(3)(a) and Section 25 of the Act is logical. Once a party receives a copy in terms of Section 18(3)(a) time starts running out against him. If no copy is given to him even if he has knowledge, I do not think, he can be non-suited on the ground of limitation.