Civil Revision No. 2663 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2663 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.08.2009 M/s Haryana Telecom Limited ....Petitioner versus M/s J.B. Industries and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.3.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for stay of the civil suit, has been ordered to be dismissed. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of account and for decree of mandatory injunction, for payment of amount due. Civil Revision No. 2663 of 2006 (O&M) -2- An application was moved by the petitioner, claiming therein, that the defendant-company had become sick industrial company and reference regarding declaration as sick company was moved to the Board for Industrial and Financial Re-construction established under Section 4 of the Act. The case set up, therefore, was that the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 22(1) of the Act. The suit on merit was also contested. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by holding, that the suit filed was not covered under Section 22(1) of the Act, as the suit was merely for rendition of account. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as all the suits against the sick industries affecting financial claim are liable to be stayed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the suit filed was for rendition of account, with consequential relief of mandatory injunction claiming direction to make payment along with interest @ 24% per annum. In the suit, tentative claim was for Rs.25,65,095/-. There is force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once a relief of mandatory injunction claiming the amount due was prayed for, it could not be said that the suit was not for recovery of money. Merely because it was drafted in a form of rendition of account, provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act were fully applicable. The revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the petitioner under Section 22(1) of the Act stands allowed. However, it would not bar the plaintiff/respondents to Civil Revision No. 2663 of 2006 (O&M) -3- proceed with the case with the permission of the Board, as envisaged under the Act. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 12, 2009 R.S.