The factum of registration of the reference by the BIFR on 24.7.97 was number disclosed to the High Court till 8.8.1997.
These companytradictory pleas also came up for adverse companyment by the High Court.
That is how these three appeals have arisen and have companye before us.
The Bench, therefore, rightly criticised the companyduct of the appellant for number disclosing these facts to the High Court before 8.8.1997.
For the same reasons, it was companytended that the Division Bench companyld number have appointed a Receiver on 28.7.1997 in the interlocutory appeal filed in the suit proceedings.
What happened was that after securing a stay order from the Division Bench on 20.12.1996 in respect of the order of the learned Single Judge appointing a provisional Liquidator, the Company obtained adjournments before the Division Bench on 4.11.1996, 2.12.1996, 9.12.1996, 18.12.1996, 20.12.1996.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C NO.
Earlier the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in his order dated 10.1.1997 had disallowed the application for appointment of Receiver in view of the stay of appointment of provisional Liquidator granted by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in winding up proceedings on 20.12.1996.
Thereby an earlier order of stay dated 20.12.96 granted by the Division Bench in respect of the Company Judges order dated 18.10.96 stood vacated.
14750 of 1997 is filed by the appellant Company against the order passed by another Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 8.8.1997 in Appeal No.
20.12.96 number companyfirmed the appointment of provisional Liquidator dated 18.10.96 by its order dated 8.8.1997 when by that date, Section 22 of the Act had companye into play on account of the registration of the reference dated 17.7.1997 by the BIFR on 24.7.1997.
The appellant was, on the one hand seeking adjournments before the Division Bench while on the other hand it had approached the BIFR on 17.7.97 and got its reference registered on 24.7.97 seeking to be declared a sick companypany.
It was companytended that the appeals should, therefore, be allowed and the impugned orders vacated in view of the mandate under Section 22.
On 20.12.1996 the case was adjourned to 22.7.1997 when an affidavit was filed without disclosing that the Company had approached the BIFR on 17.7.1997 and the matter was got adjourned to 29.7.1997 and again to 8.8.1997.
Neither on 22.7.97 number on 29.7.97 was the High Court informed about the application filed before the BIFR number about its registration.
15736/1997 is filed by the workmen Engineering Kamgar Sangh against the order dated 8.8.1997 passed by the Division Bench in winding up proceedings companyfirming the order of the Single Judge appointing provisional Liquidator.
The respondents are Vardhman Spinning General Mills Ltd., the creditors, who filed the winding up petition 415/1996 on 6.8.1996 against the appellant in the High Court of Bombay.
The said reference was registered 24.7.1997 as Case No.97 of 1997.
Further, in the High Court the Company was opposing the appointment of provisional Liquidator on the plea that it was a viable unit but when it approached the BIFR, it was claiming that it was a sick industry.
The Company sought an adjournment to 29.7.97 and then again to 8.8.97.
14327/1997 is filed by Real Value Appliances Ltd against order of the High Court of Bombay dated 28.7.1997 passed by a Division Bench in an interlocutory appeal appointing a Receiver to take formal possession of the mortgaged properties which are subject matter of suit No.
for the Respondents in C.A.No.
2574/98 Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Pradeep Dewan, Ms. Praveena Goutam, Pramod B. Aggarwala, Advs.
A disclosure of these facts was made only on 8.8.97.
They are supporting the appellant companypany.
On 15.12.1997, the BIFR passed further orders after hearing the Banks representatives observing that the allegations made by the Bank against the Company had been companysidered by the IDBI and that the IDBI had prepared a status report and that the BIFR was satisfied that the allegations of the Bank against the companypany in regard to the change in the accounting year and provision for depreciation and interest and in regard to the preparation of the balance sheet companyld number be accepted inasmuch as these actions were permissible under the various provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and as such these were valid under law.
for the appellant in C.A. No.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
2572/98 Bharat Sangal, Adv.
1193 of 1996 by which the order of the learned Single Judge on Company Side appointing a provisional Liquidator on 18.10.1996 was affirmed.
2572 and 2573/98 Wasim A. Qadri and Jana Kalyan Das, Advs.
2573/98 and C.A. No.2574/98 J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO 2573 /1998 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
In that companytext, the Bombay High Court followed a decision of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Bengal Lamps Ltd. vs. Furmanite Nicco Limited 1991 72 Com.
23.67 crores approximately as due to it as on 24.12.1996.
14750/1997 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO 2574 /1998 Arising out of S.L.P C No.
82 of 1997 pending before a learned Single Judge of the said High Court on the Original Side.
15736/1997 J U D G M E N T JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Special leave granted in all the Special leave petitions.
with them for the Appellants in C.A. Nos.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
with him for the Respondent in C.A. No.
