Delhi High Court
Dr. Softech And Industries Ltd. vs A.A.I.F.R. And Ors. on 15 May, 2006
Bench: M Sharma, R Khetrapal
ORDER
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5th October, 2005 passed by the Appellate Authority namely Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein as against the judgment and order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction dated 23rd July, 2002 in case No. 94/2000. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the petitioner herein as against the order dated 23rd July, 2002 by which the BIFR rejected the reference petition of the petitioner dated 17th February, 2000 filed under Section 15(1) of the SICA in the aforesaid case. There was a previous reference made by the petitioner to the same Authority under Section 15(1) of the SICA on the audited accounts for the financial year ending 30th June, 1999. The said reference was, however, rejected by the BIFR which was communicated to the petitioner by its letter dated 1st February, 2000. A number of defects were found which were pointed out to the petitioner for declining the registration of the aforesaid reference. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed the second reference dated 17th February, 2000.
2. The aforesaid reference of the petitioner was considered by the BIFR and the said second reference was again rejected by order dated 23rd July, 2002, which was a detailed speaking order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the aforesaid appeal was filed which was also dismissed. The aforesaid orders are under challenge in this writ petition, on which we have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted before us that both the orders are required to be set aside on the simple ground that the reply of the petitioner on the observations of SIA were not at all considered by the BIFR as also by the Appellate Authority. We have given our consideration to the aforesaid submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioner. On going through the records, we however find that both the authorities have considered the records and thereafter have recorded their reasons before passing their respective orders. A bare perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority would also show that the Appellate Authority noticed that in paragraph-3 of the order of the BIFR it has been stated by the BIFR that it had examined the submissions made by the company as also the observations of the SIA and OA, and that said paragraph, a detailed analysis for the findings arrived at has also been given by the BIFR. The Appellate Authority has considered the said findings recorded by the BIFR and held that the aforesaid findings were passed on justifiable grounds and on the material on record. It is clear from the aforesaid that the BIFR has considered all the observations and submissions made by the petitioner herein at length and each one of the same has been considered by the Appellate Authority on the appeal filed by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has found that the petitioner has shown the value of the stocks as 'nil' instead of Rs. 20.25 lacs as on 31st March, 1998. The aforesaid action on the part of the petitioner, it was held by the Appellate Authority, clearly proves and establishes that it had understated its profits. The BIFR has also recorded that the company has shown an amount of Rs. 1.75 crores as recoverable from Hindustan Synthetics Fibres, which is also known as Jindal Polyster Ltd. (JPL). It is, however, disclosed from the records that the said company informed the SIA that they have never purchased anything from the company, and therefore, it is also found by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner had mis-represented the facts before it. After discussing the case of the petitioner it has recorded that there is no justifiable reason to differ with reasons of the BIFR that the balance sheet of the company cannot be relied upon and that the provision of Rs. 8.42 crores made during the year 1998-99 cannot be allowed for the purposes of deciding sickness of the company.
4. The aforesaid findings and the conclusions arrived at are findings of fact. We are not sitting as an Appellate Court while exercising our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition has no merit and is hence dismissed.
