LEMOS CEMENT LIMITED Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the Court-The present petition has been preferred for getting refund of the amount, deposited by the petitioner with the respondents against purchase of the coal, which was never refunded as the petitioner is a sick industrial company and even the respondents are admitting that the petitioner is required to be refunded the amount of Rs. 9,42,671.36 (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy One and Paise Thirty Six), but, as the petitioner is a sick industrial company, the respondents are advised not to make the payment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act. 1985T there cannot be a coercive recovery against the sick company. In the facts of the present case, the respondents have to make the payment of the amount, already deposited by the petitioner and Section 22 of the Act, 1985 has no applicability, at all, in refund of the amount.

(3.) It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have no claim against the petitioner. In much earlier point of time i.e. on 28th/ 29th March, 2006, the respondents have accepted the fact that the petitioner's amount of Rs. 9,42,671.36 (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy One and Paise Thirty Six) is lying with the respondents and they have no claim against the petitioner, which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition. Likewise, looking to Annexure-6, this very fact has been accepted by the respondents in paragraph 5 that the petitioner's amount of Rs. 9,42.671.36 (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy One and Paise Thirty Six) is lying with the respondents and there is no claim of the respondents with the petitioner. Even as per Annexure-6/1, in petitioner's ledger as on 11th August, 2006, the aforesaid amount is shown as amount payable to the petitioner by the respondents and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents dated 29th November, 2006 by rejecting the claim of the petitioner to refund amount deposited towards lifting of the coal, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Because of pendency of any matter before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) or pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act. 1985 has nothing to do with the refund of the amount. It appears that the respondents have not properly appreciated Section 22 of the Act, 1985, otherwise, rest of the facts have been admitted by the respondents that the amount has already been deposited by the petitioner and the respondents have no claim against the petitioner.