1 companypany by order dated 03.04.2014.
An appeal was filed by the respondent No.
Since an adjudicatory function and role has been performed by the Registrar, whose order has been affirmed by the Secretary and the Chairman of the Board and as registration of the Reference sought for by the respondent No.
The Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the SICA had been repealed by the SICA Repeal Act, 2003.
Thereafter the Official Liquidator came to be appointed by the High Court on 02.09.2014.
There was a further appeal to the Chairman of the Board against the order of the Secretary.
The approach to this Court also was number successful with the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent No.1 companypany having been dismissed on 30.09.2013.
What would be of significance is the events that had transpired while the matter was before the authorities of the Board, namely, the Secretary and Chairman of the Board.
1 which was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court on 23.04.2014.
Thereafter, it appears that on 13.12.2013 the High Court of Bombay passed orders for winding up of the respondent No.
The orders of the Secretary and Chairman of the Board rejecting the application for Reference filed by the Respondent No.1 companypany were subjected to a challenge in a writ petition filed by the respondent company before the Delhi High Court out of which the present proceedings have arisen.
The said enactments and the changes in the existing enactments give rise to a somewhat altered scenario, as will be numbericed hereinafter, though essentially the companye of the question that has arisen remains substantially unaffected.
1 companypany Zenith Infotech Ltd. filed a Reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction hereinafter for short the Board under Section 15 of the SICA.
Though the maintainability of the second appeal before the Chairman of the Board would be in serious doubt in view of the provisions of Regulation 19 4 read with sub Regulation 8 1 and 2 of Regulation 19 of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Regulations, 1987 hereinafter for short the Regulations it will number be necessary to deal with the said question in the present proceedings except to state that the Chairman of the Board also dismissed the second appeal filed by the respondent No.
1 companypany before the Secretary of the Board against the order of Registrar which was dismissed on 13.09.2013.
The said application was refused registration by the Registrar of the Board on 12.08.2013 on the ground that respondent No.1 companypany is number an industrial companypany within the meaning of Section 3 e and 3 f of the SICA.
On 23.07.2013 the respondent No.
It appears that on 30.07.2013 a petition for winding up of the respondent No.1 companypany was admitted by the High Court of Bombay and the order of admission was affirmed by the Division Bench in appeal.
Briefly the facts relevant are as follows.
