Sew-Eurodrive India Private Limited v. Tecpro Systems Limited

$~40 to 43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 661/2015 & CO. APPL. NOS. 2593 & 2594/2015 SEW-EURODRIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rohan Rohatgi, Advocate versus TECPRO SYSTEMS LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Sparsh Jain and Mr. Ankit Sibbal, Advocates.

+ CO.PET. 16/2016 ROTEX MANUFACTURERS & ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. V.N. Vasudeva, Advocate versus TECPRO SYSTEMS LTD ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Sparsh Jain and Mr. Ankit Sibbal, Advocates.

+ CO.PET. 149/2016 & CO. APPL. NOS. 677 & 678/2016 GAYATRI PROJECTS LTD.

..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Arun Kathpalia & Mr. Angad Lalita, Advs.

versus TECPRO SYSTEMTS LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Sparsh Jain and Mr. Ankit Sibbal, Advocates.

+ CO.PET. 237/2016 & CO. APPL. NO. 1004/2016 FAITH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Ashish Kapur, Ms. Chhavi Luthra & Mr. Rishab Gulati, Advs.

versus TECPRO SYSTEMS LTD.

..... Respondent Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Sparsh Jain and Mr. Ankit Sibbal, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

O R D E R

% 27.07.2016 Counsel for the respondent, who is also appearing for this respondent in some other matters before this Court, states that the order has been passed by the BIFR on 14.07.2015 in a reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, pointing out that the said reference has been registered by the Board in case No. 86/2015 on 09.07.2016. Further interim orders have also been passed. The same is taken on record. Counsel for the respondent has also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court dated 15.05.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 3603/2009 titled Managing Director, Bhoruka Textiles Ltd. vs. Kashmiri Rice Industries and, in particular, paragraph 10 thereof, which states that, " ..... the receipt of a reference must be held to be the starting period for proceeding with the enquiry ....".

Consequently, and as postulated by Section 21 of SICA, under such circumstances, the instant petition cannot lie. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed on that ground alone. However, it is clarified that on termination of the proceedings before the BIFR, the petitioner would be at liberty to file fresh petition on the same grounds as in this petition in case he is so advised. It is further clarified that the merits of the matter have not been examined one way or the other and the petitioner is also at liberty to move BIFR under Section 22(1) of SICA for seeking such relief, what may be available to him in law, in case he is so advised. The petition, as well as all pending applications, are disposed off accordingly.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

JULY 27, 2016 rd