1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.100 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1590 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.372 OF 1981 WITH APPEAL (L) NO.397 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.1415 OF 1980 M/s P.V.P. Ltd. ...Appellants v/s Bhumiputra Commerce Bank ...Respondents Mr Ajay Paniker for Appellants. Mr S. Deshmukh with Mr Harshal Manik i/b M/s Rustomji and Ginwalla for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATE : 12TH JULY 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] Both these appeals are between the same parties and therefore can be conveniently disposed off by a common order. 2] Bhumiputra Commerce Bank  respondent filed two suits for recovery of money against the present appellants - M/s P.V.P. Ltd., viz. Suit No.372 of 1981 and Suit No.1415 of 1980. Both the suits were decreed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the plaintiffs by order dated 17th March 2006. It appears that on behalf of the present appellants it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the reference of the present appellants before the B.I.F.R. was registered on the date on which the suits were decreed, but the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the decrees because according to the learned Single Judge, the respondent No.1 could not prove before him that the reference of the Company was actually pending on that date before the B.I.F.R. Notice of motion No.1590 of 2006 was taken out in suit No.372 of 1981 for setting aside the 3 decree passed in that suit. That notice of motion was disposed off by order dated 16th June 2006. Appeal No.100 of 2006 has been filed against the decree passed in suit No.372 of 1981 whereas appeal (L) No.397 of 2010 has been filed challenging the decree dated 17th March 2006 passed in suit No.1415 of 1980. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Before us, it is common ground that the date on which the suits came to be decreed against the present appellants i.e. 17th March 2006, a reference made by the appellant Company was pending before the B.I.F.R. Therefore, on that day, in view of the provisions of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985, this Court had no jurisdiction to proceed further with both the suits and therefore, the decrees dated 17th March 2006 passed in both the suits are contrary to the mandatory provision contained in section 22 of the said Act and therefore, decrees passed in both the suits will have to be set aside. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 4 3] The decrees passed in suit No.372 of 1981 and suit No.1415 of 1980 as also the order dated 16th June 2006 passed in notice of motion No.1590 of 2006 are set aside. Suit No.372 of 1981 and suit No.1415 of 1980 are remitted back to the learned Single Judge for being dealt with in accordance with law. It is made clear that the plaintiffs in both the suits shall be at liberty to secure appropriate orders in relation to the bank guarantee to be furnished by the respondent No.1 from appropriate Court. Both the appeals are disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH) (JUSTICE SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA)