The High Court of Delhi disposed of a writ petition challenging an AAIFR order as infructuous following the repeal of the SICA, which dissolved the BIFR and AAIFR.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~7
M/S CARONA LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Ramesh Gopinathan, Adv.
versus
BANK OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.D.R. Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms.Sapna Jain, Adv. for R-2. Mr.Balraj Dewan, Adv. for R-3. Mr.Saurabh Chadda with Mr.Ishan Kashyap, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA
O R D E R % 02.02.2017
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 24.09.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Authority for Industrial Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) in Appeal No.112/2014 and also sought orders for restoration of BIFR reference case No.74/1998.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 has been enforced w.e.f. 01.12.2016, by notification No.S.O.3568(E) dated 25.11.2016. By reason of repeal of SICA, the BIFR and the AAIFR stand dissolved. The writ petition has, therefore, become infructuous and the petitioner does not wish to proceed with the same.
The writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. The pending application also stands disposed of.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2017 gm
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S Carona Limited
Bank of India and Ors
Indira Banerjee
Anil Kumar Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
