1 C.R.A. 198 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 198 OF 2010 1. Trinity Forge Pvt. Ltd., through Manager, B. Balaji, Age Major, Occu. Service, R/o D.A-6/1, M.I.D.C. Area, Ahmednagar. Applicant V E R S U S 1. M/s. Prakash Industrial Corporation, Proprietor Prakash Shantilal Katariya, Age 35 yrs, Occu. Business, R/o Manik, behind Bajaj Auto show room, Nagar Pune road, Ahemednagar. 2. Trinity Forge Pvt. Ltd., Main office through M.D. J.C. Basu, Age yrs, Occu. Business, R/o plot No. 15, S. Block, M.I.D.C., Bhosri, Pune. (deleted as per Court order dated 9th December, 2010 in C.A. No. 12732 of 2010) Respondents Mr. S.L.Bhapkar,Advocate for the applicant Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent No. 1 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 25th January, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. At the admission stage, this revision can be decided and disposed of by following order : 2. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order 2 C.R.A. 198 of 2010 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, refusing to stay the proceedings in Civil suit No. 67 of 2007, under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (here-in-after referred as ‘SIC Act, 1985’). 3. It is common ground that the respondent / plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money against the applicant / defendant and soon thereafter, in the written statement, the applicant / defendant pointed out that they are declared ‘sick industrial company’ and a scheme under section 19 of the SIC Act,1985 is being implemented. The Learned Judge refused to stay the proceeding holding since some other Company has taken over the management of the applicant / Company, the applicant / Company is no more sick industrial Company. 4. The question is, whether this finding of the learned Judge is correct? The answer is in negative. The learned Judge probably did not understand the Scheme of the provisions of the SIC Act, 1985. As said above, it is common ground that prior to filing of the suit, in 2004, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), established under the provisions of the SIC Act, 1985, declared the applicant a sick industrial company. It is also common ground that the BIFR then held the enquiry under section 16 of the SIC Act, 1985. In the mean time, an Operating Agency was appointed on 27th February, 2007. The BIFR finalized a scheme which inter-alia provided that another Company by name Hovale group would infuse funds for rehabilitation of the applicant / Company. The Scheme came into operation on 27th February, 2007, and it is still being implemented and even when the impugned order was passed on 3rd October, 2008. The ultimate purpose of the scheme is of rehabilitation of the applicant. Until that is achieved or in case of its failure until the applicant is 3 C.R.A. 198 of 2010 completely wound up the scheme would still be in operation. The learned Judge did not realize or probably did not understand the implication of sanctioning of the scheme. So the provisions of S.22 would still be in force and would provide protection to the applicant. 5 In view of this, the revision deserves to be allowed. The impugned order stands set aside. The proceeding in Civil Suit No. 67 of 2007 shall stands stayed as provided under Section 22 of the SIC Act, 1985. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SDM*/198.10CRA/25111/ok