1 30 chs 1184.2009.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION srk CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1184 OF 2009 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 155 OF 2002 IN AWARD/DECREE DATED 11TH APRIL, 2001 M/s. Soma Papers & Industries Ltd. ..Applicant. vs. M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Mahesh Patil i/b Mr. G.S. Manaswala for the applicant. Mr. Ravindra P Kadam for the respondent. .... CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2010 P. C. 1. Heard. 2. The Applicant-Decree Holder, in whose favour Arbitration Award has been passed on 11th April, 2001, prays for vacating of an order of stay for Execution of Award passed by this Court on 20th July, 2004 in Chamber Summons No. 527 of 2003. 3. The Petitioner filed an Execution Application No. 155 of 2002 for Execution of the Award dated 11th April, 2001. The 2 30 chs 1184.2009.doc Award directs the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 32,51,000/- with interest. In pursuance of an Execution Application, warrant of attachment was issued to the tune of Rs.59,19,810/-. Thereafter, the respondent took out the chamber summons no. 527 of 2003 in this Court praying that Execution Application no. 155 of 2002 be dismissed or in the alternative proceedings therein be stayed and the warrant of attachment be quashed. This Chamber Summons is taken out on the ground that the respondent-company was a sick company within the meaning of the Sick Industrial Companies Act (for short SICA), and in view of a bar under section 22 (1) of SICA, the execution could not be proceeded with. The contention was accepted by the Court and attachment was vacated as also the Execution proceedings were stayed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the defendant-company is no longer a sick company. He invites my attention to the order dated 29th June, 2007 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short BIFR), Bench-I, copy of which is annexed to the Chamber Summons. In the affidavit in reply, the respondent has not 3 30 chs 1184.2009.doc disputed the order dated 29th June, 2007. Paragraph 12 of the order dated 29th June, 2007 reads thus: “12. The Board, on consideration of the facts, merits of the case and the materials on record notes that, the prescribed provisions of the SS-02 and also the subsequent direction(s) issued by the Board in this regard have been substantially implemented by the concerned agencies including that of by the company/promoter(s) as a result of which the company, besides being able to continue its normal manufacturing operations has also been able to turn its networth positive as on 31.3.07 by Rs. 38.83 crs. (appx.). The Board, further notes that the company in the Board meeting of the ‘Board of Directors’ (BOD) held on 18.5.07 considered, discharge of the company from the purview of SICA/BIFR when the BOD resolved that the company be discharged from the purview of SICA/BIFR. As the company M/s GTC Industries 4 30 chs 1184.2009.doc Ltd. (GTCIL) ceases to be a sick industrial company, within the meaning of Section 3 (1)(o) of the Act, the Bench hereby discharges the company M/s GTC Industries Ltd. (GTCIL) from the purview of SICA and issues the following directions:- i) The SBI is hereby relieved from the responsibility as the MA. ii) The un-implemented provision(s) of the SS-02 for the un-expired period of the scheme and also the un-implemented provisions of the subsequent order(s) issued by the Board in this regard, if any, would continue to be implemented by the concerned agencies and their implementation would be monitored by the company. iii) The ‘Special Director’, appointed by the BIFR on the company’s ‘Board of Directors’ (BOD), if any, would stand discharged with immediate effect. 5 30 chs 1184.2009.doc iv)The company would complete necessary formalities with the ‘Registrar of Companies’ (ROC), as may be required. Let a copy of this order be circulated to all the concerned agencies.” 5. Perusal of paragraph 12 of the order makes it clear that the respondent-company has ceased to be a sick industrial undertaking within the meaning of SICA. Consequently, there is no bar for continuation of an Execution proceeding under section 22 of the SICA. In view thereof, the order for stay of the execution application granted by this court needs to be vacated. 6. For these reasons, the chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and the petitioner is permitted to proceed with the execution application. [ D.G. KARNIK, J. ]