Dismissed

The Southern Switchgear Ltd. v. Appellate Authority for

Madras HC15 Dec 2016WP/3771/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Southern Switchgear Limited challenging an appellate order rejecting a belated BIFR reference on limitation grounds. The Court found the reference exceeded the 60-day limit mandated by law and quashed no order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the order of the Appellate Authority confirming the rejection of the BIFR reference on limitation grounds was upheld.

The Southern Switchgear Ltd. Vs Appellate Authority for — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 15.12.2016

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

W.P.No.3771 of 2003

¶6

The Southern Switchgear Limited,

¶7

rep.by its Deputy General Manager .... Petitioner

¶8

vs. 1.Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, Jawahar Nagar, Vyapar Bhawan, No.1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-11 2.The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, Jawahar Nagar, Vyapar Bhawan, No.1, Tolstoy Marg,

¶9

New Delhi-11 ...Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the order of the second respondent dated 14.5.2002 in case No.123/2001 as affirmed by the order of the first respondent dated 18.11.2002 in Appeal No.223/2002, and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to take this reference on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban

¶12

ORDER When the matter was taken up for hearing Mr.R.Parthiban, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties have not cared to contact the counsel this far. Under such circumstances, this Court perused the case papers.

¶13

It is seen that the petitioner company had made a belated reference to BIFR under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industries Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

referred to as the 'Act' in short) which was rejected by the BIFR on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner company approached the appellate authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi in Appeal No.223 of 2002. Even before the appellate authority, the representatives of the petitioner company did not appear, but was taking adjournments on one ground or the other, as they were enjoying certain protection against the recovery of dues by its creditors. The appellate authority perused the papers and held that the reference under Section 15(1) of the Act should have been made within 60 days from the date of finalisation of the audited accounts of the company for the financial year, as at the end of which, the company has become a sick industrial company. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply to the proceedings either before the BIFR or the appellate authority.

¶16

In this case, the reference has been made on 7.2.2001 by the petitioner company based on the audited accounts of the company for the year 1998-99. Thus, the reference has been made on the 130th day and not within 60 days, as contemplated under section 15(1) of the Act. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the appellate authority and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar (CCC) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar Msk To 1.Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, Jawahar Nagar, Vyapar Bhawan, No.1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-11

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

2.The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, Jawahar Nagar, Vyapar Bhawan, No.1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-11

¶19

W.P.No.3771 of 2003

¶20

MG (CO)
kk 6/1

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Southern Switchgear Ltd. v. Appellate Authority for

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Southern Switchgear Ltd. v. Appellate Authority for

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandran Ratnaswami Vs the Inspector of Police

Chandran Ratnaswami Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Southern Enterprises Vs Govt of India

Vijaya Bank Workers` Orgn. Rep Vs 1.VIJAYA Bank, Rep.by Genl.

India Deisya Congress Thuppura Vs the Commissioner

D.Balraj. Vs 1.THE Govt.of Tamilnadu, Rep.