Kerala High Court
State Bank Of Travancore vs B.S.T. And P.S.P.Workers Union ... on 17 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943
CO.APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 23/2006 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:
THE CHAIRMAN & M.D,INDIAN BANK
31, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-600 001 REPRESENTED,
BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN BANK,
CIRCLE OFFICE, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SRI.S.EASWARAN
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 5 TO 14:
1 B.S.T.AND P.S.P.WORKERS UNION (CITU)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CITU DISTRICT
COMMITTEE, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD-678 001.
2 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, BOARD
OF INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION,
JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAWAN, I TOLSTOY MARG, NEW
DELHI- 110 001.
3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S.BST LIMITED, AUDIO HOUSE, 7/711, N.H.BYPASS
ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 007.
4 THE SECRETARY INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
2
5 THE CHAIRMAN AND M.D, BANK OF BARODA
BARODA, CORPORATE CENTRE, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA, EAST, MUMBAI-400 051.
6 THE CHAIRMAN AND M.D, STATE BANK OF
TRAVANCORE, INDUSTRIAL REHABILITATION CELL, HEAD
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
7 THE CHAIRMAN AND M.D. IDBI,
IDBI TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI.
8 THE CHAIRMAN AND M.D, ICICI BANK
LIMITED, ICICI TOWER, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
MUMBAI-400 051.
9 THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER, HUDCO, VISHALA, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA
PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066.
10 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
ESIC REGIONAL OFFICE, ESI CORPORATION,, RAJENDRA
PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 008.
11 THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY
BST LIMITED, WORKERS UNION, BASHETTIHALLIL,
VEERAPURA POST, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE-561
203.
(DELETED)
THE 11TH RESPONDENT WILL STAND DELETED FROM THE
PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER
ORDER DATED 21/03/2019 IN IA NO.1/2019 IN
CO.APPEAL NO.22/2009.
12 THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY
PALGHAT DISTRICT ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES,
MASDOOR SANGHAM, EMS OFFICE, HARIKARA STREET,
PALAKKAD-678 013.
13 THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY
PALGHAT BPL EMPLOYEES UNION (INTUC), 18/140,,
KENNATH PARAMBU, CHITTUR ROAD,, PALAKKAD-678
013.
14 THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
3
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SR.
SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.P.GOPINATH
SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR
SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
SRI.K.MONI
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI SR.
SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.
SRI.JAMES KURIAN,CGC
SRI.V.K.SUNIL,SR.GP
THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2022, ALONG WITH Co.Appeal.23/2009, 27/2009 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943
CO.APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2009
APPELLANTS/8TH AND 7TH RESPONDENTS IN COMPANY APPLICATION:
1 ICICI BANK LTD
ICICI TOWER, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,, MUMBAI-400
051.
2 STRESSED ASSETS STABILISATION FUND
(IDBI) ,IDBI TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI-400
005.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS AND RESPONDENTS IN COMPANY
APPLICATION:
1 BST AND PST WORKERS UNION (CITU)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CITU DISTRICT
COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD-678 001.
2 BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL
RECONSTRUCTION, JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAVAN, 1,
TOLSTOY MARG,, NEW DELHI-110001.
3 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
5
4 BST LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION)
REP. BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR,, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
5 CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR,
INDIAN BANK, 31 RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-600 001.
6 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANK OF BARODA, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE,, BANDRA
KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051.
7 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
INDUSTRIAL REHABILITATION CELL, HEAD OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
8 CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
HUDCO VISHALA, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,, NEW
DELHI-110 066.
9 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
ESI CORPORATION, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110
008.
10 THE PRESIDENT,
BST LTD. WORKERS UNION, BASHETTIHALLI, VEERAPURA
POST,, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE-561 203.
(STRUCK OFF)
11 THE PRESIDENT,
PALGAT DISTRICT ENGINEERING AND MASDOOR SANGH,
EMS OFFICE, HARIKARA STREET,, PALAKKAD-678 001.
(STRUCK OFF)
12 THE PRESIDENT,
PALAKAKD BPL EMPLOYEES UNION, INTUC 18/140,
KENNATH PARAMBU,, CHITOOR ROAD, PALAKKAD-678
013.
(STRUCK OFF)
13 OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,, KOCHI-682 031.
R10 TO R12 ARE STRUCK OFF FROM THE ARRAY OF
PARTY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER
DATED 30/11/2021 IN CO.APPEAL 23/2009
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
6
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SR.
SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.S.EASWARAN
SRI.K.MONI
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
SRI.JAMES KURIAN, CGC
THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2022, ALONG WITH Co.Appeal.22/2009 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943
CO.APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 23/2006 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.5 IN C.A
THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANK OF BARODA, BARODA, CORPORATE CENTRE, BANDRA
KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051.
BY ADVS.
K.M.ANEESH
SUMESH KUMAR N.C.
K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER IN C.A AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND
6 TO 14 IN C.A:
1 BST AND PST WORKERS UNION(CITU)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CITU DISTRICT
COMMITTEE, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD-678 001.
2 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, BOARD OF
INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION, JAWAHAR
VYAPER BHAWAN,I, TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI-110
001.
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
8
3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S.BST LIMITED
AUDITS HOUSE, 7/711, N.H.BYPASS ROAD,, PALAKKAD-
678 007.
4 THE SECRETARY
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
INDIAN BANK, 31, RAJAJISALL, CHENNAI-600 001.
6 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, INDUSTRIAL
REHABILITATION CELL, HEAD OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
7 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
IDBI TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI.
8 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
ICICI BANK LIMITED, ICICI TOWER, BANDRA KURTA
COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400051.
9 THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
HUDCO, VKHALA, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,, NEW
DELHI-110 066.
10 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
ESICI REGIONAL OFFICE, ESI CORPORATION,,
REJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 008.
11 THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY BST LIMITED
WORKERS UNION, BASHETTIHAALIL, VEERAPARA POST,,
DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE-561 203.
12 THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY
PALAGHAT DISTRICT, ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES,
MASDOOR SANGHAM, EMS OFFICE, HARIKARA STREET,
PALAKKAD-678 001.
13 THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY
PALAGHAT BPL EMPLOYEES UNION (INTUC), 18/140,,
KENNATH PARAMBU, CHITTUR ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 013.
14 THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
9
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.EASWARAN
SRI.P.GOPINATH
SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.
SRI.JAMES MATHEW, CGC
SRI.V.K.SUNIL,SR.GP
SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2022, ALONG WITH Co.Appeal.22/2009 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943
CO.APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2010
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 23/2006 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/6TH RESPONDENT:
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
INDUSTRIAL REHABILITATION CELL, HEAD OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY ADV SRI.ARUN THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 AND 7 TO 14:
1 B.S.T. AND P.S.P.WORKERS UNION (CITU)
BY ITS SECRETARY, CITU DISTRICT COMMITTEE,
KOPPAM, PALAKKAD -678 001.
2 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, BOARD OF
INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION, JAWAHAR
VYAPAR BHAWAN,I,TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.
3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S.BST LIMITED
AUDIO HOUSE,7/711, N.H.BYPASS ROAD,PALAKKAD- 678
007.
4 THE SECRETARY
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARATMENT, GOVERNEMENT
OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
11
5 THE CHAIRMAN AND M.D, INDIAN BANK 31
RAJAJISALAI, CHENNAI-600 001.
6 THE CHAIRMAN AND M.D BANK OF BARODA
CORPORATE CENTRE, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,, BANDRA
EAST, MUMBAI-400 051.
7 THE CHAIRMAN AND M.D IDBI IDBI TOWER
CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI.
8 THE CHAIRMAN AND M.D., ICICI BANK LTD
ICICI TOWER, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI 400
051.
9 THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
HUDCO, VISHALA, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW
DELHI- 110 066.
10 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESIC REGIONAL
OFFICE, ESI CORPORATION, RAJENDRA PLACE,, NEW
DELHI- 110 008.
11 THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY,BST LIMITED
WORKERS UNION, BASHETTIHALLI, VEERAPURA POST,,
DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE- 561 203.
(DELETED).
THE 11TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY
ARRAY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS
COURT IN I.A. NO.1/2019 IN CO.APPEAL 22/2019 AS
PER ORDER DATED 17/11/2021 IN CO.APPEAL 4/2010
12 THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY
PALGHAT DISTRICT ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES,
MASDOOR SANGHOM, EMS OFFICE, HARIKARA STREET,
PALAKKAD -678 001.
13 THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY
PALGHAT BPL EMPLOYEES UNION (INTUC),18/140,
KENNATH PARAMBU, CHITTUR ROAD, PALAKKAD -678
013.
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
12
14 THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
K.MONI
N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
T.C.SURESH MENON
THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2022, ALONG WITH Co.Appeal.22/2009 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
13
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Company Appeal Nos.22, 23 and 27 of 2009
and 4 of 2010
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2022
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
These appeals are directed against the order dated
03.08.2009 in C.A.No.522 of 2008 in C.P.No.23 of 2006. The
appellants are respondents 4 to 8 in C.A.No.522 of 2008. The
parties are referred to in this judgement, as they appear in
C.A.No.522 of 2008.
2. The applicant is a trade union of the workers of
the company under liquidation. During 2003, when the
Company became sick, the Board of Directors of the Company
made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial
Reconstruction (the BIFR) under Section 15(1) of the Sick
Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (the SICA)
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
for appropriate measures to be taken for revival of the
Company. On 29.09.2005, the BIFR, after making necessary
inquiries and after affording an opportunity of hearing to all
concerned, formed an opinion that the Company is not likely to
become viable and that it is only just and equitable to wind up
the Company, and forwarded the said opinion to this Court in
terms of Section 20(1) of the SICA to order winding up of the
Company in accordance with the provisions of the Companies
Act, 1956 (the Companies Act). C.P.No.23 of 2006 is the
company petition registered on the basis of the said opinion of
the BIFR. Notice was ordered in C.P.No.23 of 2006 on
02.08.2006 and on 02.11.2007, after hearing all the parties
concerned, this Court ordered winding up of the Company.
3. A consortium of Banks led by the fourth
respondent was extending financial assistance to the Company
on the security of two major assets of the Company. While the
proceedings before the BIFR was pending, the fourth
respondent, on behalf of the consortium of Banks, initiated
proceedings against the secured assets of the Company under
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act)
and the Authorised Officer appointed by the fourth respondent
took possession of one of the secured assets on 15.10.2005 and
the other on 13.02.2006 as provided for under Section 13(4) of
the SARFAESI Act. Later, on 29.06.2006, one of the secured
assets was sold by the Authorised Officer of the fourth
respondent in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI
Act and the sale proceeds were appropriated by the fourth
respondent and their consortium partners.
4. In the meanwhile, 74 workmen of the Company
preferred a claim petition against the Company before the
Labour Court, Kozhikode as C.P.No.21 of 2005 and obtained an
order directing the Company to disburse a sum of
Rs.56,16,987/- towards the benefits due to them. The Company
did not comply with the said order. C.A.No.522 of 2008 was
filed by the applicant, in the above circumstances, seeking a
direction to the fourth respondent to deposit the proceeds of
the sale of the secured asset effected by them with the official
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
liquidator. The case set out in the said application is that the
Company being a company which is being wound up, in terms
of the second proviso to Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act, the
fourth respondent is entitled to retain the proceeds of the sale
of the assets of the Company only after depositing the
workmen's dues with the liquidator.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth
respondent in C.A.No.522 of 2008 contending, among others,
that the reference before the BIFR has abated in terms of the
third proviso to Section 15(1) of the SICA when they took
possession of one of the secured assets on 15.10.2005; that the
Company cannot be treated thereafter as a company which is
being wound up and the second proviso to Section 13(9) of the
SARFAESI Act does not therefore apply to the sale effected by
them later on 29.6.2006. It was also contended by the fourth
respondent that at any rate, the Company cannot be treated as
a company which is being wound up in order to apply the
second proviso to Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act before it
was ordered to be wound up by this Court on 02.11.2007 and
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
the said provision does not therefore apply to the sale of the
secured asset effected by them on 29.06.2006 on that ground
as well.
6. The Company Court took the view that in the
absence of any challenge against the proceedings of the BIFR in
terms of which its opinion to wind up the Company was
forwarded to this Court or against the order of this Court in
terms of which the Company was ordered to be wound up, the
fourth respondent cannot be heard to contend that the
reference before the BIFR has abated. The Company Court also
took the view that the winding up of the Company pursuant to
the opinion forwarded in terms of Section 20(1) of the SICA
shall be deemed to have been commenced on the date on
which the BIFR forwarded its opinion to this Court and the sale
of the secured asset effected after the said date would
therefore fall within the scope of the second proviso to Section
13(9) of the SARFAESI Act. In the light of the said findings, the
Company Court allowed C.A.No.522 of 2008 and the fourth
respondent and their consortium partners were directed to
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
deposit the workers' dues as assessed by the Official Liquidator
with the Official Liquidator as provided for in the second proviso
to Section 13(9). The fourth respondent and their consortium
partners are aggrieved by the said order of the Company Court
and hence these appeals.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on
either side.
8. Adv.Sri.S.Easwaran who led the arguments on
behalf of the consortium of banks elaborated the contentions
taken by the fourth respondent in C.A.No.522 of 2008 pointing
out that Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act would apply only to
a company which is being wound up and a company can be
considered to be a company which is being wound up only
when a reference under Section 15(1) of SICA in respect of the
company abates. It was argued by the learned counsel that the
reference in respect of the Company under Section 15(1) did
not abate when the BIFR forwarded its opinion to this Court that
the Company is one to be wound up. According to the learned
counsel, the said reference stood abated only when the fourth
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
respondent took measures as provided for under Section 13(4)
of the SARFAESI Act in respect of one of the secured assets of
the Company on 15.10.2005 by the operation of the third
proviso to Section 15(1) of the SICA. It was argued by the
learned counsel that all proceedings pursuant to the opinion
forwarded by the BIFR under Section 20(1) of the SICA after the
abatement of the reference under Section 15(1) are void and
therefore, the Company cannot be treated as a company in
liquidation thereafter. Since the sale of one of the secured
assets was effected by the fourth respondent after the
reference under Section 15(1) has abated, the second proviso
to Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act does not apply to the said
sale, argues the learned counsel. To bring home the point that
the reference under Section 15(1) would be pending even if the
BIFR forwards its opinion that the Company is one to be wound
up in terms of Section 20(1), the learned counsel has placed
reliance on the provisions contained in Section 20(4) which
empowers the BIFR to deal with the assets of the sick
companies notwithstanding the provisions contained in Section
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
20(1). The learned counsel has also relied on the decision of
the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Salem Textiles
Limited v. Authorized Officer, Phoenix ARC Private Ltd.,
AIR 2013 Mad 229 and the decision of the Apex Court in
Madras Petrochem Ltd. and another v. Board for
Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and others,
(2016) 4 SCC 1, in support of the said proposition. Alternatively,
it was argued by the learned counsel that even assuming that
all further proceedings pursuant to the opinion forwarded to
this Court under Section 20(1) including the winding up order
passed by this Court are valid, at any rate, the Company cannot
be treated as a company which is being wound up before the
date of the winding up order or at least before the date on
which the Company Court applied its mind on the opinion of the
BIFR and ordered notice to the parties on the same. According
to the learned counsel, the second proviso to Section 13(9) of
the SARFAESI Act does not apply to the sale effected by the
Authorised Officer of the fourth respondent before the Company
Court applied its mind on the opinion of the BIFR.
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
9. Per contra, Adv.B.Deepak, the learned counsel
for the applicant submitted that if the BIFR forwards its opinion
that the company is one to be wound up in terms of Section
20(1) of the SICA, the Company Court is bound to order winding
up of the company and the company shall therefore be treated
as a company which is being wound up from the date on which
the BIFR has formed its opinion. It was argued by the learned
counsel that since measures under Section 13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act have been taken by the fourth respondent in
respect of the secured assets of the Company only much
thereafter, the second proviso to Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI
Act would certainly apply to the sale of the secured asset
effected after the said date.
10. Section 15(1) of the SICA which is relevant in
the context of dealing with the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the fourth respondent reads thus:
"15. Reference to Board - (1) When an industrial
company has become a sick industrial company, the
Board of Directors of the company, shall, within sixty
days from the date of finalisation of the duly audited
accounts of the company for the financial year as at the
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
end of which the company has become a sick industrial
company, make a reference to the Board for
determination of the measures which shall be adopted
with respect to the company:
Provided that if the Board of Directors had
sufficient reasons even before such finalisation to form
the opinion that the company had become a sick
industrial company, the Board of Directors shall, within
sixty days after it has formed such opinion, make a
reference to the Board for the determination of the
measures which shall be adopted with respect to the
company:
Provided further that no reference shall be made
to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction
after the commencement of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, where financial assets have
been acquired by any securitisation company or
reconstruction company under sub-section (1) of section
5 of that Act:
Provided also that on or after the commencement
of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002,
where a reference is pending before the Board for
Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, such reference
shall abate if the secured creditors, representing not less
than three-fourth in value of the amount outstanding
against financial assistance disbursed to the borrower of
such secured creditors, have taken any measures to
recover their secured debt under sub-section (4) of
section 13 of that Act."
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
As noted, the third proviso to Section 15(1) is categoric in its
terms that a reference under the said provision pending before
the BIFR on or after the commencement of the SARFAESI Act
shall abate if the secured creditors, representing not less than
three-fourth in value of the amount outstanding against the
financial assistance disbursed to the borrower, have taken any
of the measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to
recover their secured debt. There is no dispute in this case to
the fact that a reference under Section 15(1) in respect of the
Company was pending after the commencement of the
SARFAESI Act. Similarly, there is also no dispute in this case to
the fact that the fourth respondent and their consortium
partners are representing not less than three-fourth in value of
the amount outstanding against the financial assistance
disbursed to the Company. Similarly, there cannot be any
dispute to the fact that the conduct of the Authorised Officer of
the fourth respondent in taking possession of one of the
secured assets of the Company on 15.10.2005 is a measure in
terms of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. In other words, if
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
the reference under Section 15(1) was pending before the BIFR
as on 15.10.2005, the same would have certainly abated on
that day. As noted, the specific contention of the fourth
respondent is that the reference under Section 15(1) does not
abate merely for the reason that the BIFR has forwarded its
opinion that the Company is one to be wound up in terms of
Section 20(1). It was on that premise, it was argued on behalf
of the fourth respondent that the reference under Section 15(1)
was abated by the operation of the third proviso to the said
provision only later when the Authorised Officer of the fourth
respondent took measures in respect of the secured assets of
the Company as provided for under Section 13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act. The first and the foremost question to be
considered therefore is as to whether the reference under
Section 15(1) was pending after the BIFR has forwarded its
opinion that the Company is one to be wound up in terms of
Section 20(1).
11. SICA was a statute introduced with a view to
secure the timely detection of sick and potentially sick
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
companies owning industrial undertakings, the speedy
determination by a Board of Experts of the preventive,
ameliorative, remedial and other measures which need to be
taken with respect to such companies and the expeditious
enforcement of the measures so determined and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto. The scheme of the
SICA was that when a reference is made under Section 15(1) of
the SICA, the BIFR would inquire into the question as to whether
the industrial company has become sick and if it is found so,
the BIFR would consider whether it is practicable for the
company to make its net worth exceed the accumulated losses
within a reasonable time. If the BIFR finds that it is practicable
for the sick industrial company to do so, the BIFR would
facilitate the company to make its net worth exceed the
accumulated losses by taking appropriate measures. On the
other hand, if the BIFR finds that the sick industrial company is
not likely to make its net worth exceed the accumulated losses
within a reasonable time while meeting all its financial
obligations and that the sick industrial company as a result
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
therefore is not likely to become viable in future, and that it is
just and equitable that the sick industrial company should be
wound up, it may record the said opinion and forward the same
to the concerned High Court for winding up of the company. It
is thus clear from the scheme of the SICA that once the BIFR
forms an opinion that the company is not likely to become
viable and that it is only to be wound up and forwards the said
opinion to the concerned court for winding up of the sick
industrial company, the reference under Section 15(1) gets
abated, for the BIFR has nothing more to do with the company
thereafter in terms of the provisions of the SICA.
12. The view aforesaid has been expressed by the
Apex Court also in Madras Petrochem Ltd., while examining
the scope of the expression 'where a reference is pending'
contained in the third proviso to Section 15(1) of the SICA
holding that a reference under Section 15(1) cannot be said to
be pending once the BIFR gives its opinion to wind up the
company. It was also clarified by the Apex Court in the said
case that a reference under Section 15(1) would get abated
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
when the BIFR forms the opinion that the company is one to be
wound up. Paragraphs 51 and 53 of the judgment in the said
case read thus:
"51. What has to be examined is whether this purely
literal rendering of the expression "where a reference is
pending" is correct or not. First and foremost, it is
important to note that the third proviso to Section 15(1)
uses the words "is pending". A reference has been held
to be pending the moment it is received by the Board. In
Real Value Appliances Ltd. v. Canara Bank [Real Value
Appliances Ltd. v. Canara Bank, (1998) 5 SCC 554] , this
Court had to decide whether the mere registration of a
reference by BIFR would result in the automatic
cessation of all proceedings which are pending in civil
courts and the company court against its assets. It was
argued that in order that Section 22 of the Act can come
into operation, BIFR must, subsequent to the registration
of the reference under Section 15, apply its mind and
consider whether it is necessary under Section 16 to
make an inquiry. Unless an inquiry is pending, the
provisions of Section 22 of the Act do not get attracted.
It was held that once the reference is registered after a
preliminary scrutiny, it is mandatory for BIFR to conduct
an inquiry. This being so, it is in furtherance of the
legislative intention to see that no proceedings against
the assets are taken before BIFR decides, after the
inquiry, to continue with the reference. It was thus held,
having particular regard to Section 16(3) Explanation,
that an inquiry shall be deemed to have commenced
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
upon the receipt by the Board of any reference or
information or upon its knowledge reduced to writing by
the Board. This being the case, this Court held that once
the reference is registered and once it is mandatory to
simultaneously call for information/documents from the
informant, then an inquiry under Section 16 must be
deemed to have commenced. In that view of the matter,
Section 22 would immediately come into play. It is clear,
therefore, that if a literal meaning were to be applied to
the expression "where a reference is pending", the third
proviso to Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies
(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 would be rendered otiose
and the purpose for which it was inserted would
completely fail. On a literal reading of the provision, such
reference shall abate on steps being taken by the
secured creditors to recover their secured debts under
Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002, the moment a reference is registered. And
this Court has held that the moment the reference is
registered, an inquiry as contemplated by Section 16
shall be deemed to commence. If that is so, then a
reference can never be said to be pending after an
inquiry commences, if the learned counsel for the
appellants is correct. This can never be the case. It is
clear, therefore, that the expression "where a reference
is pending" would necessarily include the inquiry stage
before the Board under Section 16 of the Act. If this be
the case, then the reference can be said to be pending
not only when an inquiry is instituted, but also after
preparation and sanction of a scheme right till the stage
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
the scheme has worked out successfully or till BIFR gives
its opinion to wind up the company.(underline supplied)
xxxxxxx
53. Another important aspect as to the construction of
the third proviso to Section 15(1) is the meaning of the
expression "such reference shall abate". One of the
meanings of the expression "abate" is "to put an end to;
to curtail; to come to naught". (See Ramanatha Aiyar's
Law Lexicon). A reference can be said to abate in one or
several ways. One obvious way that a reference abates
is where the Board, after inquiry, rejects the reference
for the reason that the Board is satisfied that the
Company is not a sick industrial company as defined
under the Act. Another way in which a reference can
abate is where a scheme is implemented successfully,
and the sick industrial company is taken out of the
woods successfully. A third manner in which a reference
can abate is when a scheme or schemes have failed in
respect of the sick industrial company, and in the opinion
of BIFR, the said Company ought to be wound up. A
fourth instance of abatement is provided by the third
proviso to Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies
(Special Provisions) Act, 1985. And that is that a
reference which is pending in the sense understood
hereinabove shall abate if the secured creditors of not
less than 3/4th in value of the amount outstanding
against the financial assistance disbursed to the
borrower, have taken measures to recover secured debts
under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
Security Interest Act, 2002. It is clear that the third
proviso to Section 15(1) seeks to strike a balance
between getting a sick industrial company out of the
woods and secured creditors being able to recover the
debt owed to them by such company. The legislature has
thought it fit to annul all proceedings before BIFR only
when at least 3/4th of the amount outstanding against
financial assistance disbursed to the borrower of such
secured creditors have taken the measures listed in
Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002. The balance is, therefore, struck by the figure
of "not less than 3/4th". The legislature has inserted this
provision so that, if 3/4th or more of the secured
creditors get together to take measures under Section
13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002, they will not be thwarted by the provisions of
Section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special
Provisions) Act, 1985, and it will not be necessary for
them to obtain BIFR permission before taking any such
measures. This construction of the third proviso to
Section 15(1) is in keeping with the march of events post
2002, when the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 came to be enacted pursuant to various
committee reports, and for the reasons outlined
hereinabove."(underline supplied)
Going by the scheme of the SICA and the decision of the Apex
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
Court in Madras Petrochem Ltd., we are inclined to hold that
a reference under Section 15(1) would get abated once the
BIFR forms an opinion that the company is not likely to become
viable and that it is only to be wound up, and forwards the
same to the concerned court in terms of Section 20(1).
13. Section 20 of the SICA dealing with winding up
of sick industrial companies reads thus:
"20. Winding up of sick industrial company.-- (1) Where
the Board, after making inquiry under section 16 and
after consideration of all the relevant facts and
circumstances and after giving an opportunity of being
heard to all concerned parties, is of opinion that the sick
industrial company is not likely to make its net worth
exceed the accumulated losses within a reasonable time
while meeting all its financial obligations and that the
company as a result thereof is not likely to become
viable in future and that it is just and equitable that the
company should be wound up, it may record and
forward its opinion to the concerned High Court.
(2) The High Court shall, on the basis of the
opinion of the Board, order winding up of the sick
industrial company and may proceed and cause to
proceed with the winding up of the sick industrial
company in accordance with the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).
(3) For the purpose of winding up of the sick
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
industrial company, the High Court may appoint any
officer of the operating agency, if the operating agency
gives its consent, as the liquidator of the sick industrial
company and the officer so appointed shall for the
purposes of the winding up of the sick industrial
company be deemed to be, and have all the powers of,
the official liquidator under the Companies Act, 1956 (1
of 1956).
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (2) or sub-section (3), the Board may cause to be
sold the assets of the sick industrial company in such
manner as it may deem fit and forward the sale
proceeds to the High Court for orders for distribution in
accordance with the provisions of section 529A, and
other provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of
1956)."
The provision in Section 20(2) extracted above would indicate
that once the BIFR forwards its opinion that the sick industrial
company is not likely to become viable and that it is only to be
wound up, it is obligatory for the High Court to order winding up
of the sick industrial company in accordance with the provisions
of the Companies Act. Of course, Section 20(4) provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in Section 20(2), the BIFR
may cause to be sold the assets of the sick industrial company
in such manner as it may deem fit and forward the sale
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
proceeds to the High Court for orders for distribution in
accordance with the provisions of Section 529A and other
provisions of the Companies Act. As indicated, the SICA was a
special enactment dealing with sick industrial companies. The
scheme of the SICA was that as far as sick industrial companies
are concerned, unless they are ordered to be wound up, the
BIFR alone will have the jurisdiction to sell the assets of the
company [See NGEF Ltd. v. Chandra Developers (P) Ltd.,
(2005) 8 SCC 219]. Section 20(4) is a special provision
conferring power on the BIFR to sell the assets of a company in
respect of which the BIFR has formed its opinion that the sick
industrial company is one to be wound up to enable the
Company Court to expedite the proceedings for winding up of
the company to protect the interests of its creditors [See
M/s.Shri Maruthi Textiles Ltd. v. The Board for Industrial
and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi, 2014 SCC Online
AP 231]. The said provision cannot be relied on to contend that
the reference under Section 15(1) would be pending even after
the BIFR forwards its opinion that the company is not likely to
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
become viable and that it is only one to be wound up to the
concerned court for winding up of the company. The argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent
placing reliance on Section 20(4) of the SICA is therefore only to
be rejected.
14. Paragraph 58 of the judgment of the Apex
Court in Madras Petrochem Ltd. reads thus:
"58. In conclusion, it is held that the interim order dated
17-1-2004 passed by the Delhi High Court would not
have the effect of reviving the reference so as to thwart
taking of any steps by the respondent creditors in this
case under Section 13 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002. This is because the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 prevails over
the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,
1985 to the extent of inconsistency therewith. Section
15(1) proviso 3 covers all references pending before
BIFR, no matter whether such reference is at the inquiry
stage, scheme stage, or winding-up stage. The Orissa
High Court [Noble Aqua (P) Ltd. v. SBI, 2008 SCC OnLine
Ori 7 : AIR 2008 Ori 103] is not correct in its conclusion
on the interpretation of Section 15(1) proviso 3 of the
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
This being so, it is clear that in any case the present
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
reference under Section 15(1) of Appellant 1 Company
has abated inasmuch as more than 3/4th of the secured
creditors involved have taken steps under Section 13(4)
of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed."(underline
supplied)
It is placing reliance on the underlined sentence in the
extracted paragraph that the learned counsel for the fourth
respondent argued that a reference under Section 15(1) of the
SICA would be pending even after the BIFR forwards its opinion
under Section 20(1) to the concerned court for winding up of
the company. Paragraph 58 of the judgment extracted above is
the concluding paragraph of the judgment in the case. It is seen
that the question examined by the Apex Court in the said case
is as to whether the expression 'where a reference is pending'
in the third proviso to Section 15(1) would include all
proceedings before the BIFR or only proceedings at the initial
stage. If the underlined sentence in paragraph 58 is understood
in the context of the question examined as also the findings
made in paragraphs 51 and 53 extracted in paragraph 12
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
above, it is clear that by the said sentence, the Apex Court has
only conveyed its decision that the third proviso to Section
15(1) would cover the stages of reference upto the stage as
provided for under Section 20. The said sentence, according to
us, cannot be stretched to argue that the reference under
Section 15(1) would be pending even after the BIFR forwards its
opinion to the concerned court that the sick industrial company
is not likely to become viable and that it is only to be wound up,
for if the said argument is accepted, it would make the finding
of the Apex Court in paragraphs 51 and 53 and the finding in
paragraph 58 mutually destructive. The argument advanced by
the learned counsel for the fourth respondent on the strength of
the underlined sentence in paragraph 58 of the judgment in
Madras Petrochem Ltd. is therefore only to be rejected.
15. One of the questions examined by the Full
Bench of the Madras High Court in Salem Textiles Limited is
"whether an action initiated in terms of Section 13(4) of the
Securitisation Act, by the secured creditors, representing three-
fourth in value of the total amount outstanding, would result in
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
the automatic abatement of the proceedings before the BIFR, in
view of the third proviso to Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial
Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 inserted by way of
amendment under Act 54 of 2002?" In paragraph 70(i) of the
judgment in the said case, while summarising the answer to the
said question, it was observed by the Court thus:
"Once an action is initiated in terms of Section 13(4) of
the Securitisation Act, 2002, by the secured creditors
representing three-fourths in value of the total amount
outstanding, the proceedings before the BIFR would
automatically abate, in view of the third proviso inserted
by Act 54 of 2002 under Section 15(1) of SICA 1985.
This is the position irrespective of whether the reference
is at the stage of budding under Section 15 or at the
stage of blossoming under Section 16 and 17 or at the
stage of fruition under Sections 18 and 19 or at the
stage of rotting (deserving only winding up) under
Section 20. "
It was placing reliance on the statement in the extracted
passage that the third proviso to Section 15(1) of the SICA
would apply even at the stage of winding up of the company,
the learned counsel for the fourth respondent argued that a
reference under Section 15(1) of the SICA would be pending
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
even after the BIFR forwards its opinion to the concerned court
under Section 20(1) that the company is not likely to become
viable and that it is only to be wound up. We are unable to
agree with the said argument, for such an inference cannot be
made from the observations made in paragraph 70(i) of the
judgment. The observations aforesaid could be understood
only to mean that the third proviso to Section 15(1) would cover
references upto the stage of Section 20. It is all the more so
since the question as to whether the reference under Section
15(1) would be pending even after the opinion of the BIFR that
the company is one which is not likely to become viable and
that it is only to be wound up has been forwarded by the BIFR in
terms of Section 20(1) to the concerned court for winding up of
the company was not under consideration before the Madras
High Court in the said case. The argument raised by the learned
counsel for the fourth respondent on the strength of the
observations made by the Madras High Court in paragraph 70(i)
of the judgment in Salem Textiles Limited is therefore only to
be rejected.
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
16. If a reference under Section 15(1) of the SICA
cannot be said to be pending after the BIFR forms its opinion
that the sick industrial company is not likely to become viable
and it is only to be wound up and forwards the same in terms of
Section 20(1) to the concerned court for winding up, the third
proviso to Section 15(1), providing for abatement of reference
when measures are initiated by the secured creditors for
recovering their secured debts, cannot have any application
thereafter, since the reference is already abated when the BIFR
forms and forwards its opinion to the concerned court.
17. Reverting to the facts, admittedly, measures
under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act have been taken by
the Authorised Officer of the fourth respondent long after the
opinion of the BIFR that the Company is one which is not likely
to become viable and that it is only to be wound up has been
forwarded in terms of Section 20(1) of the SICA to the
concerned court for winding up of the Company. If that be so,
the third proviso to Section 15(1) cannot have any application
to the facts of the case. If the third proviso to Section 15(1) has
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
no application to the facts of the case, the contention of the
fourth respondent that the proceedings in which this Court
ordered winding up of the Company are void, is unsustainable.
18. The surviving question is as to the date of
commencement of the winding up when the BIFR forms an
opinion for winding up of a sick industrial company in terms of
Section 20(1) of the SICA. More precisely, is it from the date of
the opinion formed under Section 20(1) by the BIFR or from the
date of the winding up order. The argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the fourth respondent is that the winding up
pursuant to the opinion formulated by the BIFR under Section
20(1) would commence only from the date of winding up order.
Alternatively it was argued by the learned counsel that at any
rate, winding up of the company cannot be said to have
commenced before the date on which the Company Court
applies its mind to initiate a proceedings relying on or on the
basis of the opinion for winding up of the Company. The
learned counsel places reliance on paragraph 50 of the
judgment of the Apex Court in Chandra Developers (P) Ltd.
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
in support of the contention that winding up pursuant to the
opinion in terms of Section 20(1) would commence only from
the date on which the Company Court applies its mind to
initiate proceedings for winding up of the company on the basis
of the opinion received from the BIFR. We are unable to agree
with this contention of the fourth respondent as well, for the
question has been answered consistently by other High Courts,
placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Chandra
Developers (P) Ltd. that winding up proceedings pursuant to
an opinion in terms of Section 20(1) would be deemed to have
commenced on the date of the opinion of the BIFR that the
company is not one which is likely to become viable and that it
is only to be wound up [See In Re: Board of Industrial &
Financial Reconstruction, (2017) 202 Comp Cas 551 (Bom),
In Re: Kapri International Pvt. Ltd., 2013 SCC Online Del
2176, Indoco Remedies Ltd. v. O.L. of Kay Packaging P.
Ltd. (2009) 150 Comp Cas 770 (Guj) and Board for Industrial
and Financial Reconstruction v. Coromandel Garments
Ltd. (2018) 209 Comp Cas 635 (Bom)]. In the case on hand, as
Company Appeal No.22 of 2009 and con. cases
noted, the date of opinion of the BIFR in terms of Section 20(1)
of the SICA was 29.09.2005. In other words, the company is
one to be treated as being wound up from 29.09.2005. If the
company is treated as one being wound up from 29.09.2005,
the second proviso to Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act would
certainly apply to the sale effected by the Authorised Officer of
the fourth respondent under the SARFAESI Act in respect of the
secured asset of the company on 29.06.2006.
There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order
impugned in the appeals. The appeals, in the circumstances,
are dismissed. All the interlocutory applications in the appeals
are closed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.
Mn
