Tata Steel Ltd. & Anr vs Incab Industries Limited & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1663 Cal

04.03.2021
     3 to 5
 RP Ct.04
                                WPA 14251 of 2018
                IA No.CAN/1/2020 (Old No.CAN 2502 of 2020)
                             Tata Steel Ltd. & Anr.
                                   Versus
                        INCAB Industries Limited & Ors.
                                    With
                             WPA 14253 of 2018
                             Tata Steel Ltd. & Anr.
                                   Versus
                             Union of India & Ors.
                                    With
                            WPA 15541 of 2018
                   The Indian Cable Workers' Union & Ors.
                                   Versus
                        INCAB Industries Limited & Ors.

              Mr.   Debasish Kundu
              Mr.   Aryak Dutt
              Mr.   Jaydeb Ghorai
              Mr.   Sugata Banerjee
                                            ....   For petitioners
              Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty
              Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee
                                            ....   For Union of India
              Mr. Rudreshwar Singh
                                            ...For respondent nos. 5 & 6

in WPA 14251 of 2018 Mr. Diwakar R Singh ... For INCAB Industries

Mr. A.K. Shrivastava Mr. Akash Sharma ... For applicant in CAN/1/2020

Mr. Indranil Nandi Mr. Sayak Konar .... For petitioners in WPA 14253 of 2018 WPA 15541 of 2018 Ms. Aparajita Rao Mr. V. Raja Rao Ms. Pallavi Gandhi .... For respondent no.19

Mr. Srivastava, learned advocate appears on behalf of

workers wanting to intervene, commences his

argument.

He draws attention to judgment dated 6th January, 2016

passed by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in, inter

alia, WP(C) 5010/2011 (RR Cable Limited vs. Incab

Industries Limited & Ors.) to submit, thereby there was

no interference with the orders of BIFR and AAIFR. This

judgment also found confirmation from Supreme Court.

The confirmed order of BIFR is dated 9 th December,

2009. In effect direction was upon State Bank of India

(OA) to examine the Draft Revival Scheme (DRS) submitted

by Tata Steel Limited (TSL) and convene a joint meeting

(JM) of all parties under section 19(1) of Sick Industrial

Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. He submits, it

would appear from said order, inter alia, that respondent

nos.5 and 6 are private players, interested in dealing with

real estate of the company. He demonstrates that as per

report dated 24th October, 2009, estimated cost to TSL on

dues of banks and financial institutions was Rs.2163.50

lacs. That has spiraled to Rs.2339 crore following the

assignments.

He submits, there can be no dispute that

assignments in accordance with law are confined to those

between banks. It is only recently that Reserve Bank of

India by circular dated 28th June, 2019 permitted

assignment inter se between asset reconstruction

companies, on conditions given therein. A copy of the

circular he has handed over to Mr. Singh, learned advocate

appearing on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6.

List on 11th March, 2021.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)