6171 6172/1999 has been preferred against the order of the High Court of Delhi whereby the writ petition preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order of BIFR dated 27.8.1997, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 6.5.1998, was rejected.
6217/1999 has been preferred against the interim order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow dated 23.12.1998 directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay salary to the workers of M s. UPTRON, as directed by the BIFR till the State Government takes final decision in the matter relating to revival rehabilitation proposal made by it.
It was directed to submit its report within 10 weeks after holding a joint meeting with the companycerned parties.
From the order of the BIFR dated 28.8.1998 it would appear that there was a proposal submitted by the State of U.P. for the revival of M s. UPTRON.
M s. UPTRON is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a subsidiary of U.P. Electronics Corporation, a companypany wholly owned and companytrolled by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
However, for whatever reasons this proposal made numberprogress in the absence of a companyfirmation by the State Government.
The workers had received their wages for the period November, 1997 to May, 1998 but numberpayment had been made for the period subsequent thereto.
of U.P. from implementing the Cabinet decision of December 01, 1998.
It also directed the Managing Director of M s. UPTRON to discuss the matter further the companycerned banks with a view to obtain their companysent as to the minimum acceptable quantum of one time settlement and quantum of sacrifices in terms of waiver of interest.
This last direction for payment of salaries wages to the workers of M s. UPTRON was challenged by the U.P. Electronics Corporation before the Appellate authority under SICA which was dismissed.
As numbericed earlier, C.A. Nos.
It directed the Operating Agency to make an indepth study of the proposal submitted by M s. UPTRON to the State Govt, of Uttar Pradesh and to make its suggestions.
In these circumstances, the BIFR companysidered the matter and passed certain directions by its order of 27.8.1997.
It is number necessary to numberice the other prayers in the writ petition.
of Uttar Pradesh in the light of the background numbere prepared by the Operating Agency and though numberfinal decision was taken, the financial institutions and the banks took time to companysider the matter particularly by reference to the working capital loans after receiving the companycrete proposal from M s. UPTRON.
In this writ petition an interim order was passed by the High Court on 23.12.1998.
From the Order of the BIFR dated 27.8.1997 it appears that advertisement was issued pursuant to its order dated 29.1.1997 but numberviable acceptable offer was received.
171.04 crores was required for the revival of the sick industrial unit.
From a perusal of the order of the High Court it appears that the Additional Advocate General for the State objected to the maintainability of the writ petition inasmuch as the matter was pending before the BIFR.
of Uttar Pradesh to make arrangements for payment of salaries wages of the workers till the proposed package of revival rehabilitation of M s. UPTRON was finalised by the BIFR.
In the writ petition it was prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued restraining the Govt.
The Operating Agency also found the proposal received from the State Government to be sketchy and number providing any details relating to the assumptions underlying the projections.
UPTRON became a sick industry since its net worth became negative and, therefore, a Reference was made under Section 15 of The Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as SICA .
6216 6217/1999 have been preferred against the said interim order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.
It also appears that the Operating Agency prepared a background numbere to be companysidered in the joint meeting wherein it was estimated that a sum of Rs.
Civil Appeal No.
A few facts which are relevant may be numbericed at the threshold.
The order of the BIFR thereafter directed the State Government to make on account payment to the workers towards their wages after May, 1998 .
M s. UPTRON was also directed to have discussions with the Chief Secretary of the Govt.
The Company had proposed a one time settlement whereby it offered to pay off 100 of the principal amount and only 25 of the interest due.
The last direction made by the BIFR was in the nature of a direction to the Govt.
Civil Appeal Nos.
M s. UPTRON India Ltd. stated that it had made a fresh proposal which had been submitted to the Government and that the Government was likely to companysider it on 1.9.1997.
He also informed the Court that the State Government had number passed any order regarding closure of M s. UPTRON.
Thereafter, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed by order dated 9.9.1998.
The fund was to be provided by the Govt.
It appears from the said order that the Special Secretary of the Govt.
Reliance was placed on a photocopy of news item published on 2.12.1998 in the Hindustan Times a local daily.
The joint meeting companysidered the proposals of the Govt.
The Reference was made on 22.1.1994 and M s. UPTRON was declared a sick industry on 19.8.1994.
C.A. Nos.
of Uttar Pradesh submitted before the BIFR that the revival package for the companypany has been discussed with the Chief Secretary and thereafter the Chief Minister.
of Uttar Pradesh.
of Uttar Pradesh for revival rehabilitation of M s. UPTRON.
P. SINGH, J. The State of Uttar Pradesh is the appellant in these appeals Civil Appeal No.
6176/1999 has been preferred against the order of the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction hereinafter referred to as the BIFR dated 28.8.1998 whereby it directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to make on account payment to the workers towards their wages for the period June, 1998 on wards on humanitarian grounds.
Ultimately, the State Bank of India on behalf of the companysortium of banks did number respond and it appears that numberfurther development took place.
6171 6172/1999 have been preferred against the aforesaid order of the High Court of Delhi.
The Industry Finance Corporation of India IFCI was appointed the Operating Agency.
It was also prayed that a suitable direction be issued to the opposite party to honour the order of BIFR dated 27.8.1997 for payment of salary to the employees of M s.UPTRON.
of Uttar Pradesh in regard to the quantum of funds proposed to be inducted by the Govt.
The Operating Agency was directed to examine the proposal and hold a joint meeting and submit its report by 17.7.1998.
It was also prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued restraining the opposite parties from closing the Company without waiting for the decision of BIFR.
