BARAR INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. NAGPUR ENGINEERING CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the Order dated 02.05.2001 passed in Execution Case No. 10 of 2000 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandpur.

(2.) THE case of the Petitioner is that the aforesaid execution case arises out of the compromise decree between the Petitioner -company and the Opposite Party company in Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 1996 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur. The Opposite Party was the Plaintiff in the said suit and the Petitioner was the Defendant. The compromise decree was passed on 20th January 1996. After the compromise decree, the Petitioner approached the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'BIFR') constituted under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985. The BIFR accepted the application and registered O.A. No. 76 of 1997. While the matter was pending before the BIFR, the Opposite Party -decree holderfiled an execution case for execution of the aforesaid compromise decree, which was transferred to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandpur, and registered as Execution Case No. 10 of 2000. On receipt of the notice to show cause in the above noted execution case, the Petitioner -Judgment debtor appeared and filed its show cause stating therein that the matter is under consideration of the BIFR. In the said show cause, it took a stand that Section 22 of the aforesaid Act completely ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court since the matter was pending before the BIFR. The Court below, however, rejected the contentions made in the said show cause and proceeded with the execution case.

(3.) MR . Palit, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner -company submits that the impugned order passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandpur is erroneous and is based on completely misreading of Section 22 of the aforesaid Act, which prohibits all legal proceedings. He has relied upon a decision reported in : [1993]1SCR340 , Maharastra Tube Limited v. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Limited. Counsel for the Opposite Party submits that at present no case is pending either before the BIFR or before the Appellate authority. He further submits that in the meantime the financial institutions, i.e., IDBI and IFCI have filed petitions before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack for realization of their respective outstanding dues. A recovery proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner vide R.P. Case No.(200) -A/03 CTC.