1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.849 OF 1998 M/s.Alagro Trading Company Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.315 OF 1999 M/s.Sheetal Enterprises. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.454 OF 1999 Dilip Dalal. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.606 OF 1999 Chawla Bros.Ltd. Sole Prop. of Kamani Oil Industries. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.881 OF 1999 Ambience Advertising Pvt.Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. 2 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.1132 OF 1999 Delite Tin Industries. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.1258 OF 1999 M/s.Heidelberg Press Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.1264 OF 1999 M/s.Nirmal Milk Products ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.1099 OF 2000 M/s.Utility Printers. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.1143 OF 2000 Shreenath Chemicals. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH 3 COMPANY PETITION NO.1173 OF 2001 M/s.Lucid Colloids Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.410 OF 2002 Hitkari Potteries Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.511 OF 2003 A P Art Printers Pvt.Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.223 OF 2005 M/s.Pryosha Packers. ..Petitioner V/s. M/s.Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.S.M.Shah for petitioner in CP 606/99. Mr.S.M.Kazi with Ashok Verma for petitioner in CP 1264/99. Mr.Amit Jamkhandekar i/b. A.R.Vaidya & Co. for Petitioner in CP 511/2003. Mr.Piyush Shah for respondent-company in all Petitions. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : OCTOBER 3, 2008. : OCTOBER 3, 2008. : OCTOBER 3, 2008. 4 P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. All these Petitions will have to be disposed of on the basis of statement made by the Counsel for the Respondent-company that the BIFR has already formulated scheme in respect of creditors and the said scheme is being acted upon by the Respondent company. 2. The Petitioners in the respective Petition pray for relief of winding up. However, in view of the scheme propounded by the BIFR which has been accepted by all concerned and is being acted upon, the question of entertaining the relief of winding up does not survive, except to the extent of failure of the Respondent company to pay the amount as per the said scheme to the respective stakeholders in the company. 3. Insofar as the claim of the respective Petitioners(creditors) is concerned, that has been reckoned by the BIFR and on that basis scheme has been formulated, which will have to be taken to its logical end by all concerned. In the circumstances, these Petitions will have to be disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to institute fresh Petition for the same relief in respect of the same 5 claim amount, in the event, the Respondent company fails to pay the amount in terms of the scheme formulated by BIFR in that behalf. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner in Company Petition No.1264 of 1999, however, submits that as per his instruction copy of the scheme has not been made available to the Petitioner. The Petitioner in that Petition would like to question the correctness of the said scheme. It is too late in the day for that Petitioner to make this grievance for more than one reason. Firstly, the fact that such scheme was formulated by the BIFR was placed on record by the Respondent-company as early as on 10th March, 2008, which fact is recorded in the said Order as well as order dated 24th March, 2008. In fact, this Court deferred passing of order on these Petitions with a view to give opportunity to the concerned Petitioners to challenge the scheme formulated by the BIFR in accordance with the law. None of the Petitioners have chosen to challenge the scheme formulated by BIFR. In that case, the scheme formulated by the BIFR would be binding on all the Petitioners before this Court as in the case of other creditors. Moreover, the argument of the Petitioners (in Company Petition No.1264 of 1999) that the Petitioners would file appeal clearly overlooks the fact that the 6 scheme has been formulated long back and the remedy of appeal provided by the Statute limits the limitation period only to 60 days from the date of knowledge of the Order. As aforesaid, each of the Petitioner has had knowledge of formulation of scheme by BIFR atleast on and from March, 2008. None of the Petitioners have chosen to challenge the scheme formulated by BIFR inspite of opportunity given in that behalf in terms of the Order dated 24th March, 2008. If the Petitioners were to file statutory appeal at this stage, the same cannot be entertained by the Appellate Court being barred by limitation and the Appellate Authority would not have jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 60 days in view of section 25 of the Act. 5. Accordingly, I see no impediment in disposing of all these Petitions on the above terms. Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)