pvr 1 a267-11 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.267 OF 2011 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.348 OF 2008 Cane Agro Energy India Ltd. ...Appellant vs. The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank.Ltd. ...Respondent --- Ms.Neeta Gokhale i/b. Hitesh Vyas, for Appellant. Mr.Kevik Setalwad i/b. M.P.Rege & Co., for Respondent. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 14th June,2011 P.C.: 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Company Petition No.348 of 2008 making conditional order pvr 2 a267-11 for admission of the Company Petition. 2. The learned Single Judge has, by the order impugned in the appeal, ordered that in case the appellant deposits an amount of Rs.5 crores on or before 31st March,2011, the petition will stand disposed of and if default is committed in depositing the amount, the petition shall stand admitted. The learned Single Judge has observed in his order that the appellant does not dispute its liability that they are liable to pay the amount to the respondent which is claimed by the respondent. Before us it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been paying the amount to the respondent-bank regularly and the amount which in the petition is claimed as due from the appellant by respondent- bank only because the appellant which was originally registered as a co-operative society is now registered as a company under the Companies Act. This position was disputed by the respondent-bank and the respondent has submitted pvr 3 a267-11 a chart showing that the appellant has not been making payment as per the agreement and that an amount in excess of Rupees Six Crores Sixty One lakhs is due from the appellant. It was submitted before us on behalf of the appellant that this chart is not correct and therefore, time was sought to file an affidavit. Time was granted. On the adjourned date an affidavit has been filed, but in that affidavit there is nothing about the chart which was filed on behalf of respondent-bank. Thus, a misleading argument was made before us that there is no default committed by the appellant in making payment to the respondent-bank as per the original agreement. Thus, we find that no exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in his order which is impugned in the appeal that the amounts which are mentioned in the company petition are definitely due to the respondent from the appellant. 3. Relying on order dated 25.5.2011 passed pvr 4 a267-11 by the Delhi High Court, it was claimed that the reference submitted to the B.I.F.R. under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985 is pending and therefore, the proceedings should be stayed. Perusal of the order passed by the Delhi High Court, however, shows that the reference filed by the appellant was rejected by the Office of B.I.F.R. as the office objections were not removed by the appellant. The conduct of the Office of B.I.F.R. rejecting the reference without placing it before the Chairman was found to be improper by the Delhi High Court, and therefore, those orders were set aside and the matter has been directed to be placed before the Chairman. However, this does not amount to saying that the reference of the appellant is already registered with the B.I.F.R. despite objections raised by the Office of B.I.F.R. In any case the effect of the order impugned in the appeal is that the company petition seeking an order for winding up the appellant-company gets admitted for final pvr 5 a267-11 hearing. If ultimately the reference submitted before BIFR is registered, the Company Court will have to stay further proceedings in the company petition. Therefore, no injury will be caused to the interest of the appellant. Thus, taking overall view of the matter, in our opinion, there is no reason to entertain the appeal. The appeal is,therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR,J.)