((-1-)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.491 OF 2006 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.798 OF 2005 IN BIFR CASE NO.509 OF 1992 Richardson Cruddas (1972) Ltd. Applicant versus The Official Liquidator & anr. Respondents Mr.T.Subramaniyam with Mr.Snehal Shah and S.Kotak i/by Purnanand & Co. for applicant. Ms.K.V.Gautam, Dy.O.L. present. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15th June 2006 PC : 1. This application is moved to set aside an ex-parte order dated 6th October 2005. The order passed on 6th October 2005 is of admission of the petition and appointing Provisional Liquidator. 2. The order proceeds on the basis that on 25th July 2003 the Board of Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) expressed its opinion that the applicant before me cannot be revived and it ((-2-)) is just and equitable that it is wound up. 3. This opinion has been forwarded to this Court vide communication dated 4th August 2003 by the Ragistrar. It is based upon this communication and on the basis that the opinion is final, that present proceedings have been treated as company petition for winding up. The opinion of BIFR itself is treated as a petition and the same stood admitted by order which is sought to be set aside. 4. Shri Subramaniyam - learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant and original respondent in support states that the Appellate Authority (AAIFR) is seized of the appeal No.395 of 2003 and connected appeals which are filed by the applicant and the employees’ union etc. and when the appellate authority took up the said appeals on 27th March 2006 it has passed an order in the following terms :- "26. We also order that till the final decision is taken all further proceedings of the BIFR including the operation of the impugned order dated 25.7.2003 passed by the BIFR shall be stayed. List it on 29.05.2006." ((-3-)) 5. Even prior to the same, as pointed out by him, at the ad-interim hearing of this application, the AAIFR had appointed an Operative Agency and was seized of the appeal. 6. In the light of pendency of the appeal and the order passed on 27th March 2006, it is clear that the matter cannot proceed before this Court any further. Bar created by Section 22(1) of the SICA would operate. 7. In the result, the order dated 6th October 2005 is recalled. Although opinion has been forwarded by BIFR and communication in that behalf is on the file of this Court, further proceedings are adjourned sine die. The opinion shall be placed before this Court for appropriate directions after the abovementioned appeals are disposed of by AAIFR.. Petition made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)