Delhi High Court
M/S Percision Fasteners Ltd vs I D B I And Ors. on 16 May, 2017
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 47/2016 & CM Nos. 260/2016, 44713/2016, 3795/2017
M/S PERCISION FASTENERS LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Sibal with Mr. Rahul Sharma
& Mr. Jitender Ratta, Advocates.
versus
I D B I & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Chinmay Kanojia with Mr. Jawahar
Raja, Advocates for R-3.
Mr. Abhishek Khanna, Advocate for Mr.
Abhimanyu Singh Khatri, Advocate for
R-5.
Ms. Ramni Taneja with Mr. Peeyush
Vaish, Advocates for R-8.
Mr. Sahil with Ms. Shibani, Advocates
for R-9/ASREC.
Mr. D.R. Jain, Standing Counsel with
Mrs. Sapna Jain, Advocate for R-11.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt with Mr. Abhishek
Anand, Advocates for R-13/SASF.
Mr. Dinkar Singh, Advocate for
respondent/ARCIL.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 16.05.2017
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter
alia for setting aside the order dated 12.10.2015, passed by the Appellate
Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) and the
order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the Board for Industrial & Financial
Reconstruction (BIFR) and further, for directions that the Scheme that
was originally sanctioned by the BIFR, be implemented by all the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent states that in view of Section 4
of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003
(in short, Repeal Act) read with Section 252 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the present petition has been rendered
infructuous.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argues that
irrespective of the aforesaid provisions, Section 5 of the Repeal Act,
would still come to the aid of the petitioner for it to continue pursuing the
present petition.
4. Section 5 (1)(b) of the Repeal Act, which is the saving clause,
prescribes that the repeal by the Act of the SICA shall not affect the
previous operation of the repealed enactment or anything done or suffered
thereunder. Section 5 (1)(d) of the Repeal Act clarifies that the repealed
enactment shall not affect any order made by the BIFR for sanction of the
schemes.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially,
BIFR had sanctioned a scheme which order was later on set aside. In the
appeal preferred by the petitioner before AAIFR, the subsequent order of
setting aside the scheme passed by BIFR was upheld. He submits that if
the orders passed by AAIFR and BIFR are set aside in the present
proceedings, the scheme, would stand revived, to the benefit of the
petitioner.
6. We are of the opinion that there is an inherent flaw in the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that
once SICA, 1985 stands repealed and AAIFR and BIFR stand dissolved,
there is no question of reviving the scheme as there would be no Agency
available for operating/implementing the same. If the petitioner has a
grievance, it must seek legal recourse before the National Company Law
Tribunal, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as prescribed
in the Eighth Schedule of the said enactment.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, with liberty
granted to the petitioner to seek legal recourse before the appropriate
forum, as may be advised.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MAY 16, 2017
afa
