STEEL TUBES OF INDIA LTD Vs. TEHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on confirmation/modification of an ad interim writ granted by this court (Vacation Judge) on 23. 12. 2002, directing parties to maintain status quo as it existed on 23. 12. 2002.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the record of the case, I am of the considered view that a prima facie case is made out by the petitioner on the strength of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gram Panchayat v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. (1992) 3 Comp LJ 346 (SC) : (1990) 2 SCC 440 ; Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra (1994) 2 Comp LJ 346 (SC) : (1993) 2 SCC 144, and, lastly, in the case of Real Value Appliances v. Canara Bank (1998) 3 Comp LJ 58 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 2064. Accordingly, it is necessary for this court to pass appropriate orders in the form of ad interim writ to safeguard the interest of the petitioner company, keeping in consideration the law laid down in aforementioned three cases.

(3.) IN substance, the challenge in this petition is to the attachment notices issued by the respondent No. 1--Tehsildar at the instance of respondent No. 5--a Government company (Annexure P-2 and P-7) for realisation of the outstanding loan amount said to have been advanced by them to the petitioner amounting to rupees 36,01,12,702. It is complained that the respondents have attached the petitioner's running industrial unit by putting locks in the petitioners' industrial premises causing immense loss and injury to the petitioner in running the unit. It is the case of petitioner that the petitioner company has applied to BIFR under Section 15 of SICA for being declared as sick industrial company within the meaning of Clause (o) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act and the BIFR has also registered the reference (being Case No. 303 of 2002--Annexure P-5) for holding an inquiry as contemplated under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act (SICA ). It is contended that in a case where the reference under Section 15 of SICA is pending, no coercive steps for attaching the petitioner's property (industrial unit) could have been taken.