Accepting the submissions made on behalf of the Corporation, the learned District Judge came to the finding that in view of Section 26 of SICA, the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to try any suit relating to sick units against the proceedings of the Board and was of the view that the Plaint should be returned to the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28 th July, 2005, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore in M.A.No.2275/2004 and also against the order dated 11th January, 2007, passed in M.C.C.No.1194/2005.
At the very initial stage, the Corporation failed to deposit 20 of the purchase price within the stipulated time and, accordingly, the aforesaid Committee cancelled the offer and forfeited the earnest money which had been deposited by the Corporation for participating in the auction.
However, on the request made on 3 behalf of the plaintiff, an order was made for return of the plaint for presentation before the appropriate forum, including the Board, under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 A C.P.C. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, dated 31 st August, 2004, the respondent Corporation filed Misc.
Pursuant to the scheme, an Assets Sale Committee was companystituted which invited tenders for sale of surplus land belonging to the appellant companypany.
Under the terms and companyditions of the sale, the highest bidder was required to deposit 20 of the purchase price within thirty days from the date of the auction and the remaining balance in two subsequent stages.
Before the Civil Court, an application was filed by the appellant Company under Sections 9 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 26 of SICA objecting to the jurisdiction of the companyrt to entertain the suit.
The said order of the High Court has been challenged in the present Special Leave Petition.
The High Court, accordingly, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned District Judge and remanded the same to the learned District Judge to dispose of the suit on merits.
It appears that a recommendation was made by the BIFR for winding up of the companypany, but in appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction AAIFR , a scheme for revival of the companypany was framed on 29th November, 1995.
The petitioner herein applied to the Board of Industrial and Finance Reconstruction BIFR under the Sick, Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as SICA for being registered as a sick companypany and it was so registered on 21st November, 1989.
Appeal No.2275/2004.
The respondent Corporation also participated in the auction and was found to be the highest bidder in respect of 2 the plots tendered for sale.
Subsequently, in 2001, the Corporation filed a Suit for recovery of the earnest money.
The application was companysidered by the learned District Judge, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, before whom the suit was pending.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
APPELLANT S Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RATLAM RESPONDENT S ORDER Leave granted.
OF 2009 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
12148 12149/07 SHREE SAJJAN MILLS LTD.
Such cancellation and forfeiture was effected as far back as in 1998.
The High Court companysidered the effect of Section 26 of the Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985 and held that the transaction between the Corporation and the Company was outside the purview both of the BIFR and the AAIFR, and that the same did number affect the implementation of the scheme.
