Allowed

Tools International Ltd., v. Appellate Authority for Indust

Madras HC6 Jul 2017WP/39041/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a revenue recovery notice against a sick industrial company awaiting BIFR rehabilitation, the Court allowed the petition. Finding that the notice has been stayed by this Court for years regarding enforcement, the Court set aside the impugned order, leaving it open for authorities to proceed with the law later. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was allowed; the impugned order was set aside; the Authorities are left to proceed with the matter in accordance with law; connection other Miscellaneous Petition closed. No costs.

Tools International Ltd., Vs Appellate Authority for… — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 06.07.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam

¶5

Writ Petition No.39041 of 2003

¶6

and W.P.M.P.No.47313 of 2003

¶7

Tools International Limited,

¶8

Plot. No.18, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Hosur – 635 126.

¶9

Rep. By its Director, M.C.Nandagopal ...Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Appellate Authority,

¶12

for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi.

¶13

Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction,

¶14

Govt. of India, New Delhi.

¶15

The Commercial Tax Officer, Hosur North, Hosur. ...Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the third respondent herein dated 11.12.2002 made in Roc.No.1992/1993/A3 and consequential order of third respondent Roc.No.1219/1992/A3 and quash the same and direct the third respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Hosur North, Hosur, not to proceed further till a decision is taken by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu in view of the Rehabilitation Scheme framed by the first respondent on 03.10.2001.

¶17

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Jenasenan

¶18

For Respondents :Mr.K.Venkatesh Government Advocate

¶19

Heard Mr.A.Jenasenan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶20

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

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed, challenging the notification issued under Section Form 4 of Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, on the ground that the petitioner-Company is declared as Sick Industrial Company and the matter was before the Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR), which has sanctioned a Scheme for rehabilitation.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents are unable to report before this Court as to whether the petitioner-Company has been revived or it has become defunct. In any event, the impugned notice was issued in the year, 2003 and all these years, operation of the same remained stayed, pursuant to the interim stay granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.47313 of 2003, hence, at this juncture, the question of directing enforcement of the impugned notice cannot be issued.

¶23

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving it open to the Authorities to proceed with in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-VIII) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar sd To 1. Appellate Authority, for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi. 2. Board for Industrial & Finanacial Reconstruction, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Hosur North, Hosur. +1 CC to A. Jenasenan, Advocate sr 47133 +1 CC to The Govt. Pleader sr 47103 Writ Petition No.39041 of 2003 CP(CO) sp(19/07/2017)

¶24

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

Tools International Ltd., v. Appellate Authority for Indust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tools International Ltd., v. Appellate Authority for Indust

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

T.Kasilingam Vs the Commr.of Prohibition and

M/s.a.W.Travel & Logistics Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Prabha Padmanabhan Vs a.Sundaravalli, IAS

M/S.the Jawahar Mills Ltd., Vs the Union of Indias

M/s Goutham Dyes & Chemicals, Vs Assistant Commisioner (Ct)

M/s.R.K.Tex Vs The Assistant Commissioner