Full Text
W.P.(C) 10983/2015, CM APPL. No. 28275/2015
Date ofJudgment : 8^^ December, 2015 PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD (PARPL)
Petitioner V>5 Through : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Advocate.
Through : Ms. Purti Marwaha, Advocate for R-L
Ms. Meha Rashmi, Advocate for R-3.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari seeking a direction to quash the proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in case No, 67 of2013.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three references being first reference No. 187 of 1997, second reference No. 180 of 2001 and third reference No. 12 of 2011, stand dismissed or abated. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth reference No. 67 of 2013 has now been entertained by the BIFR while there is no provision under the Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA) for entertaining repeated references.
3. Notice was issued in the matter. Ms. Meha Rashmi, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has entered appearance and submits that regulations of the BIFR stands amended. She submitsthat Regulation 19(9) has been introduced as per which after the previous references have abated/de-registered/dismissed/ discharged by BIFR, any reference made thereafter would deem to be a repeated reference and the Registrar after scrutiny of such a reference, within a period of 30 ^days would refer to the bench constituted for the purpose of deciding whether it is a case of registering the reference and as to whether provisions of Section22 should be extendedto such companies. She ftirther submits that in the present case, such a procedure was followed and she also handed over the copy of amendment in Court and the order dated 23.08.2013 passed pursuant to the amendment dated 23.08.2013.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner clarifies that although the amendment took place subsequent to the order dated 23.08.2013, the order was passed taking into consideration the direction contained in the judgment dated 01.06.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case No. 12723/2012 titled as Alcatel-Lucent India Ltd Vs. Usha India Ltd: 2012 (174) Comp. Casl (Delhi).
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
6. The amendment to Regulation 19 (9) reads as under: "G.S.R. 291. - 19(9) Repeated References: Notwithstanding the provisions contained in regulations 19Q[5]), 19(6), 19(7) and 19(8), here in above, a reference under sub-section (1) ofSection 15, filed by a sick company after its previous two
8. references were abated/de-registered/dismissed/ discharged by BIFR shall be deemed to be a 'repeated reference'. The Registrar, after scrutiny of such a reference shall within a period of 30 working days thereof, refer it directly to a Bench ofBIFR constituted for the purpose of deciding whether it is a case for registering the reference and as to whether the provisions of Section 22 should be extended to such companies." We have also examined the order dated 23.08.2013 passed by the "Special Bench of BIFR. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to press the present writ petition and he would seek appropriate remedy as available to him in accordance with law and with respect to the order dated 23.08.2013. Accordingly, present writ petition and all pending applications are disposed of. We are also informed that the publication of the relevant amendment does find mention in the recent publication. Copy of this order be brought to the notice ofthe Government Press. -S. G.S.SISTANI, J SAN®rA DmNSRA SEHGAL, J DECEMBER 08,2015 gr