Allowed

M/S Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Dec 2015W.P.(C)/9320/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It directed that the revised scheme for M/S Ganesh Benzo Plast Ltd. be sanctioned, holding that the absence of a BIFR member did not preclude implementation given the consultant's approval.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, and the scheme annexed to the report stands sanctioned.

M/S Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. Vs Union of India… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2015)

¶1

$~17.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9320/2015

¶4

% Judgment dated 4^th December, 2015 M/S GANESH BENZOPLAST LTD. ..... Petitioner Through : Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Ms.Varsha Banerjee and Ms.Divya Krishnan, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC, and Mr.Arindam Dey, Advs. for respondent no.1. Mr.Manish Mohan, CGSC, Mr.Shivam Chanana and Ms.Pooja Mishra, Advs. for respondent no.3. Mr.Harish Kumar, LDC from BIFR.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

¶9

G.S.SISTANI, J ( ORAL )

¶10

Learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 3 are present in Court. Despite service none is present on behalf of respondent no.2/IDBI Bank.

¶11

Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to sanction the Scheme of the Company pending in BIFR Case No.42/2009.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of one of the Members, the BIFR is not functioning, which has forced the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

W.P.(C) No.9320 /2015

¶15

On 26.11.2015, when the matter was listed in the Court, counsel for the petitioner had submitted that recommendation for sanctioning the revised scheme had been made by the BIFR on 21.10.2015 but the order cannot be implemented as no formal order of sanction can be passed in the absence of Member of BIFR. The Order dated 26.11.2015 reads as under:

¶16

“ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recommendation for sanctioning the revised scheme has been made by the Board for Industrial Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on 21.10.2015 but the order cannot be implemented as no formal order of sanction can be passed in the absence of Member of BIFR.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 wishes to take instructions in the matter and also produce necessary record to enable this Court to satisfy itself that such scheme has been recommended.

¶18

Mr.Mohan, learned counsel for respondent no.3, has produced the original record in Court, and has drawn the attention of the Court to the Office Noting dated 21.10.2015, which reads as under:

¶19

“ BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION

¶20

CASE No.42/2009 M/s Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. (GBPL)(B-II)

¶21

Refer noting on pre-pages.

¶22

In the last hearing held on 01.06.2015 in MA No. 86/2015 (Flat Á’). Earlier the DRS was circulated on 18.04.2013 with cut off date as 31.03.2011 and the statutory hearing was held on 25.07.2013 in which the Hon’ble Bench has directed the OA (IDBI) to clarify the mismatch of cash flow, reconciliation of APCL

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

W.P.(C) No.9320 /2015

¶25

dues, to obtain view of SEBI on the letter dated 12.07.2013 regarding funding of Rs.16.56 crores to FOSCL by GBL, reconciliation of IT dues and to clarify the unexplained in flow of funds through a shell company. Subsequent hearings have been took place on 26.08.2013, 12.12.2013, 16.01.2013, 13.3.2014, 19.3.2014, 17.11.2014, 13.01.2014 and 01.06.2015. The scheme could not be sanctioned due to various objections and suggestions.

¶26

Now, OA vide their letter dated 11.09.2015 has submitted the revised and up-dated DRS along with all clarifications, as pointed out by Board as well as in various hearings.

¶27

The DRS is now modified as per the directions of Hon’ble Bench and Sanctioned Scheme is prepared and is being submitted along with order for kind approval of Hon’ble Member and Hon’ble Chairman.

¶28

Accordingly, the scheme is being submitted for kind sanction of HM(SCS) and HC. ”

¶29

The original record and the aforestated noting would show that the Consultant of the BIFR has approved the scheme. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The scheme annexed to the report stands sanctioned.

¶30

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

CM APPL.21587/2015

¶32

Application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the writ petition.

¶33

G.S.SISTANI, J

¶34

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

¶35

DECEMBER 04, 2015 msr

¶36

Page 3 of 3

¶37

W.P.(C) No.9320 /2015

M/S Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhur Courier Service Vs Union of India & Ors.

Asi/Exe Ranbir Snigh Solanki Vs UOI & Ors.

Gewa Sampada Cghs Ltd. & Anr. Vs the Registrar Cooperative Societies

Punjab National Bank through Anil D. Sawant, Chief Manager Vs Union of India & Ors.

Khurshid Ahmed Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M.C.D. Vs Ram Milan & Anr.

Brijesh Singh Vs Bhai Mati Dass Co-Operative Urban, T & C Society, Ltd.

G.M.Gouzamng Kuki @ G.M.Kuki Vs UOI and Ors.

Neelima Bagaria Vs Standard Chartered Bank & Anr.

Union of India Vs Khetrabasi Biswal & Anr.

Union Public Service Commission Vs Sugan Singh & Ors.

Absa Bank Limited Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Hira Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jai Bhagwan Nandal Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.