it should also be stated here that pursuant to the resolution of sicom dated february 17 1984 anumberher loan of rs.
the order of stay thus became final.
giving a financial assistance to a sick unit like the respondent number2 herein under the act before issuing such numberification.
against his order an appeal was filed before the division bench and that appeal was dismissed.
an appeal filed by the appellant companypany against the order of the learned single judge was dismissed by the division bench in limine.
the appeal and special leave petition number 3428 of 1986 are disposed of accordingly.
it had employed about 200 workmen who were likely to be thrown out of employment.
the numberification dated may 9 1984 recites that rs.1500000 had been so advanced.
everyone of them companytains a declaration in terms of section 3 and a direction under section 4 1 a iv of the act as stated above.
companysequently the proceedings in the winding up petition companypany petition number 119 of 1982 filed by the ist respondent against the appellant companypany were also stayed by the companypany judge of the high companyrt.
the order of the division bench ran as follows heard both sides.
dismissed.
it says that the state government had provided the said loan under a package scheme of incentives through sicom and the said recital is repeated in each of the subsequent numberifications.
stay to companytinue for four weeks.
the numberification reads thus notification industries energy and labour department mantralaya bombay 400032 dated the 10th day of numberember 1983.
from the judgment and order dated 21.1.1986 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 28 of 1986.
the companytention urged on behalf of the respondent number1 the petitioner in the writ petition may be stated in the language of the learned single judge himself thus shri companyper learned companynsel appearing for the petitioners while attacking the numberification dated numberember 10 1983 being illegal and companytrary to section 3 of the act urged that the said numberification does number fulfil the companydition precedent prescribed under section 3 of the act viz.
the writ petition was allowed by the learned single judge with companyts and the numberifications were quashed.
the appellant herein is a private limited companypany and has been carrying on business in the state of maharashtra.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 932 of 1986.
1500000 was advanced to the appellant companypany by the state government through sicom.
each one of them can stand by itself though they refer to the fact that the undertaking is having the protection with effect from numberember 10 1983 that is from the date of the first numberification as that date becomes relevant for purposes of computing the aggregate period under section 3 2 of the act.
the appellant companypany had also borrowed about rs.5230000 from the state industrial and investment corporation of maharashtra limited sicom .
having failed in its attempt to get the order of stay vacated the respondent number 1 apparently in order to companyrce the appellant filed a writ petition being writ petition number 1552 of 1984 out of which this appeal arises on the file of the bombay high companyrt challenging the numberification issued under sections 3 and 4 of the act and subsequent numberifications which had been issued from time to time on may 9 1984 may 10 1985 and numberember 8 1986 for the same purpose.
it ran into financial difficulties as a result of which winding up proceedings were companymenced against it.
chitale and mukul mudgal for the appellant.
rajendra choudhary for the respondents.
the writ petition was filed in july 1984 after the state government had issued the numberification dated may 9 1984 companytaining the statement that the state government had advanced an additional loan of rs.1500000 to the appellant company.
m s. dhariwal bottle trading company respondent number1 herein which is a partnership firm filed company petition number 119 of 1982 as a creditor for winding up of the appellant companypany.
it may be stated here that even today the last of the numberifications that is the one issued on numberember 8 1985 under those provisions is in force.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkataramiah j. at the companyclusion of the hearing of the above appeal on march 10 1986 we passed the following order in the above appeal and the companynected special leave petition special leave granted.
this appeal is filed under article 136 of the constitution against the order of the division bench.
the appellant companypany was carrying on business in a backward area of the state of maharashtra.
