The appellant company has filed Writ petition Civil No.
594/91 in the High Court of Delhi wherein the said order passed by the Appellate Authority has been challenged.
2553 of 1991 the revision petition filed by the appellant company against the order of the XII Additional Small Cause Judge, Bangalore allowing the Eviction petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of March 15, 1991, i.e., after the passing of the stay order by the Delhi High Court.
As a result of these orders, numberproceedings under the Act was pending either before the Board or before the Appellate Authority on February 21, 1991 when the Delhi High Court passed the interim order staying the operation of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991.
It was held that the stay order which had been passed by the Delhi High Court in the writ petition did number entitle the appellant company to invoke the protection under s. 22 of the Act as if the appeal under section 25 of the Act was pending.
The said revision was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court by order dated 15 March, 1991 view of s. 29 1 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act which prescribes that numbertenant against whom an application for eviction his been made by a landlord under s. 21 shall be entitled to prefer or prosecute a revision petition under s. 50 against an order made by the companyrt on an application made under s. 21 unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the District Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the premises up to the date of payment.
The appeal filed by the appellant company before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority, against the said order dated 26 April 1990, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated January 7, 1991.
1008 On 26 February 1988 the respondents filed a petition seeking eviction of the appellant company from the demised premises under s.21 1 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 on the ground that the appellant company is a chronic defaulter in the payment of rent and as on March 31, 1987 the appellant companypany was in arrears to the tune of Rs.
Civil Appeal No.
The learned single Judge was of the view that pendency of the writ petition in the High Court of Delhi and the stay of the order of the Appellate Authority did number stand in the way of the Court to proceed with the matter.
The promoters were directed to submit an acceptable rehabilitation proposal which is technically, economically and companymercially viable for the revival of the companypany to ICICI urgently and ICICI was directed to appraise the proposal, if any, submitted by the promoters to them and submit their report to us within one month.
It was held that numberenquiry under s. 16 was pending number any scheme referred to under s. 17 was under preparation or companysideration and there is also numbersanctioned scheme under implementation and that the appeal filed by the appellant companypany under s. 25 of the Act has also been rejected.
126/92 has been filed by the appellant company against the said order of the Karnataka High Court dated November 6, 1991.
21,159.
After publication of the general numberice in the newspapers and on intimation to the companycerned parties the Board heard the objections suggestions, if any, of the companycerned parties to the proposed winding up of the companypany and after companysidering the same the Board passed the order dated April 26, 1990, whereby it was found Upon companysideration of the facts and material before us and the submissions made at todays hearing, we find that Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. have become economically and companymercially number viable due to its huge accumulated losses and liabilities and should be wound up.
2553/91 has been filed by the appellant company against the said order of the Karnataka High Court.
2,45,534 was payable as rent to the respondent.
If numberacceptable rehabilitation scheme is received by the BIFR within one month, our opinion to wind up the companypany will be forwarded to the High Court of Judicature in Karnataka for further necessary action under the law.
The appellant companypany filed a writ petition against to said order of the Additional Small Causes Court which was subsequently companyverted into a revision petition under s. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act.
We have been informed that the said Writ Petition is still pending in the Delhi High Court and the stay order passed by the said Court is also operative.
50,000 which was sent by the appellant company, when presented for encashment, was dishonored.
After the dismissal of the appeal of the appellant companypany by the Appellate Authority the winding up petition was taken up for companysideration and it was allowed by a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court by order dated August 14, 1991.
The said application of the appellant company was rejected by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore by order dated September 14, 1989 on the view that section 22 of the Act had numberapplication inasmuch as proceedings instituted by the landlord for recovery of possession of the premises of which a sick industrial companypany is a tenant is number included among the proceedings which are required to be suspended under s. 22 1 of the Act.
In those proceedings the appellant company moved an application under s.151 CPC read with s. 22 of the Act for stay of the said proceedings on the ground that the appellant company had been declared a sick industrial companypany under the Act by the Board and a scheme was under preparation as per section 16 of the Act.
126 to 1992, directed against the order for winding up of the appellant company.
Civil Appeal No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.3.1991 of the Karnataka High Court Civil Revision Petition No.
Since the amount was number paid the respondents issued a numberice under section 434 of the Companies Act and thereafter a petition was filed in the High Court of Karnataka under Section 433 e of the Companies Act for winding up of the appellant company.
The respondents issued a legal numberice dated 1st April, 1987 calling upon the appellant company to pay the said amount.
It has set up a factory at Hirahalli in Tumkur District of Karnataka State.
On the stay petition filed with the said writ petition, numberice was issued for May 10, 1991 and in the meanwhile, operation of the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991 was stayed.
The learned single Judge found that neither the tenancy number the amount claimed in the petition towards the arrears and the subsequent rents due as on February 28, 1991 amounting in all Rs.
The appellant company filed an appeal against the said order of the learned single Judge which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by order dated November 6, 1991.
While the said winding up petition was pending the appellant companypany, claiming that it has become a sick industrial companypany, filed a reference under section 15 1 of the Act before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, hereinafter referred to as the Board, on 12 December, 1988.
1 in these appeals, in Bangalore on a monthly rent of Rs.
The revision petition filed by the appellant companypany was, therefore, rejected.
582 of 1991.
2,45,534 and that the said amount has number been paid in spite of numberice and that a cheque dated January 1, 1988 for a sum of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
9,35,618 was disputed.
126 of 1992, were passed after the passing of the stay order dated February 21, 1991 by the High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. These appeals filed by M s Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. raise questions involving the interpretation of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
Thereafter the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore by order dated September 30, 1989 allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondents and held that the respondents were entitled to get possession of the premises and that appellant company is liable to vacate and give possession to the respondent.
Madhava Reddy, N.K. Gupta and N.D.B. Raju for the Respondents.
While companysidering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed.
The appeallant companypany companymitted default in payment of rent and as on March 31, 1987 a sum of Rs.
The appellant is a public limited companypany registered under the Companies Act, 1956,.
However, in view of the submissions made by the companypany and in order to give a final opportunity to the promoters as requested by them, our advice 1007 to wind up the companypany to the respective High Court will be with held for a period of one month.
After hearing the companycerned parties, the Board formed a prima facie opinion that it would be just and equitable as also in public interest that the appellant company, which has become a sick industrial companypany within the meaning of section 3 1 o of the Act, should be wound up in view of the large accumulated losses, poor market prospects for the products of the appellant company and inability of the promoters to bring in the required additional interest free funds etc.
It was set up with the object of manufacturing 1006 mopeds in companylaboration with Cycle Peugot of France.
The said stay order of the High Court cannot have the effect of reviving the proceedings which had been disposed of by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991.
2553 of 1991.
N. Sree Kumar for the Appellant.
In the said writ petition, the High Court of Delhi, on February 21, 1991, passed an order for issuing numberice returnable for May 10, 1991, to show cause as to why rule nisi be number issued.
The learned single Judge rejected the prayer for exemption from 1009 the applicability of s. 29 1 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act claimed on the basis of the statutory protection granted to the appellant company under section 22 of Act.
The appellant companypany has taken on rent the premises belonging to the Church of South Indian Trust Association, respondent No.
