DAJODWAL AND TERPENTINES Vs. SYNTHETIC AND CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICES were issued to the respondents under registered covers, but the same have not been received back served or unserved, therefore, their service is deemed and they are set ex-parte.

(2.) THE appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 26,96,100/- against the respondents in the Court of Additional District Judge, jammu. The respondents while contesting the maintainability of the suit, filed an application for seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that an inquiry under Section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act (Special Provision), 1985 before the BIFR was pending. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 30-8-2000 dismissed the suit being of the view that the same could not be proceeded with against the assets of the defendants-company due to the facts that the matter is pending disposal before the bifr.

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for appellant is that the learned trial Court ought not to have dismissed the suit and should have made the same to lie over until the decision of the Board. He submits that during the pendency of the appeal, the Board for Industrial Financial Reconstruction vide its order dated 9-3-2001 has dismissed the reference of the company made under Section 15 of the Act. He further submits that even the appeal filed before the appellate authority by the respondents against the order of the Board has also been dismissed by order dated 23-8-2001. He has placed on record the certified copies of the judgments of the Board as well as the appellate authority.