GULABDAS NAMDEO Vs. AMBUJA CEMENT EASTERN LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition seeks the quashment of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Class II staying execution of a decree with respect to charges of the plaintiff which was passed in Civil Suit No. 4-B/99 on 29-7-99 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- due on account of labour charges of painting and signboard work along with interest of 10% invoking Section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

(2.) EXECUTION application was preferred on 31-7-2002. Respondent-Company was declared sick under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on 5-11-1997 as per order (R-3) passed by the BIFR (Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction) in Case No. 86/94. Labour charges for painting work relates to the period of the year 1997 and objection was raised by the respondents before the Executing Court that by virtue of Section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the SICA"), execution of decree cannot proceed without consent of the BIFR. The Executing Court has allowed the application for stay of execution by the impugned order (P-4), dated 29-7-2002, hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court by the petitioner assailing the same.

(3.) IT is averred in the petition that petitioner undertakes 'painting of sign boards' and "wall painting" work. Respondent Industry was originally under the name and style of M/s. Modi Cements which has been later on merged with respondent No. 1 M/s Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. Petitioner was required to prepare boards and to do wall paintings. The work was done pursuant to the advertisements dated 13-12-96 and 18-4-97 which was duly completed by the petitioner. Petitioner issued bills dated 5-4-97 for Rs. 19,908/- and dated 20-12-97 for Rs. 16,320/- total Rs. 36,328. 00 in the name of respondents and prayed for payment of the said bills. The bills were not honoured. As such petitioner had to file civil suit No. 4-B/99 which was decreed on 29-7-99. Petitioner filed execution proceedings. An application (P-2) raising objections was filed. Petitioner filed reply and contended that petitioner is not a creditor of the Company. He had undertaken the labour work for the Company of wall painting and sign boards and as he is not a creditor of the respondents, an application filed for stay of an execution is not tenable. Reply is P-3. The Trial Court has accepted the prayer as per order (P-4), dated 29-7-2002, hence, present writ petition has been filed. Petitioner's main ground of challenge is that provision of Section 22 is not applicable to the subject-matter for which decree if passed which essentially relates to the labour charges for the work rendered. Petitioner is not a creditor, hence, the Executing Court has erred in staying the execution and labour charges never comes in the definition of the loan/credit. This position of law the learned Civil Judge has failed to appreciate.