Disputes and differences arose between the parties, which were referred to arbitral tribunal.
Appellant was kept outside the said Scheme.
By reason of the impugned judgment the said Letters Patent Appeal has been dismissed, stating The Appellant claims to be an unsecured creditor to the extent of Rs.1.51 crores as set out in the award dated 30.7.2002 with further interest at the rate of 18 per annum.
There were other secured and unsecured creditors also.
We are number companycerned with the said Contempt Petition herein.
The AAIFR granted stay of operation of the order of BIFR dated 27th October, 2004 by an order dated 13th September, 2005.
An intra companyrt appeal was preferred thereagainst by the appellant on or about 3rd August, 2006.
Order of the AAIFR In view of the aforementioned order of the High Court, AAIFR also on or about 1st June, 2006 approved the said Scheme opining Learned companynsel for the Appellant Company states that the scheme of Compromise and Arrangement approve by the Bombay High Court have been incorporated in the scheme of revival cum merger submitted to IDBI Operating Agency in pursuance of direction given by us on 9.11.2005.
By an order dated 1st May, 2007, BIFR is said to have sanctioned the Scheme cum merger of M s. Wanbury Ltd. with the respondent.
However, it is clarified that whatever objections the appellant may have against the revival scheme pending before the BIFR, pursuant to the order dated 1.6.2006 passed by the AAIFR, they may place their objections before the BIFR and obviously upon such objections being placed the BIFR shall companysider the revival scheme of the respondent Company on is own merits, keeping in view all relevant fact and circumstances, including the objections of the appellant.
The said companytentions of the appellant, however, were rejected by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 13th April, 2006 and the Scheme was approved.
However, as Unit Trust of India UTI raised an objection for giving up any of its dues and there were six secured creditors and large number of unsecured creditors, BIFR on or about 27th October, 2004 passed an order recommending winding up of the respondent.
In this backdrop, the impugned order cannot be faulted.
An award was passed on 30th July, 2002 in the Arbitration proceedings for a sum of Rs.1,51,36,795/ together with interest 18 per annum till payment and or realization.
It purported to have companysidered various schemes.
The scheme involved some selective secured creditors and some selective unsecured creditors.
The BIFR appointed Industrial Development Bank of India IDBI as an operating agency.
Proceedings under SICA Respondent being unable to pay the dues made a reference in terms of Section 15 of SICA before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction BIFR .
On the said date, all the interested parties including the appellant were heard.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction AAIFR .
It is stated that the total amount due to the appellant from the respondent would be near about 5.7 crores of rupees.
The scheme was to become effective upon approval of overall settlement including an order for merger or any other mode of acquisition of assets of PPIL by Wanbury or such scheme of PPIL by BIFR AAIFR.
We may also place on record that inter alia on the premise that the said Scheme of merger was approved in gross violation of this Courts order dated 15th December, 2006, a companytempt petition was filed.
Company Court Proceedings Respondent, however, filed an application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay purported to be in terms of Section 391 of the 1956 Act during the pendency of the said appeal on or about 29th April, 2005.
Background Facts First respondent is a companypany registered and incorporated under the 1956 Act.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted Introduction Interpretation application of the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Special provisions Act, 1984 SICA vis vis the Companies Act, 1956 1956 Act is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th October, 2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.725 of 2006 arising out of a judgment and order dated 13th February, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court approving a Scheme filed by the respondent herein in Company Petition No.470 of 2005 which was under Section 391 of the 1956 Act.
