IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1566 of 2009 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. DUNDEHERA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, GURGAON, HARYANA THROUGH LUXMI DUTT VAISTH, S/O LATE SRI AMIN SINGH VASISTH, PERSONAL MANAGER CORPORATE OFFICE I.D.P.L. GURGAON, P.S- GURGAON, HARYANA. AUTHORISED SIGNATORY OF MANAGING DIRECTOR. ………Not party/ Appellant. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FERTILISER AND CHEMICAL DEPTT. NEW DELHI 2. DIRECTOR, INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. DUNDEHERA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, GURGAON HARYANA-122001 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. GURGAON, HARYANA - 122001 4. REGIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD SRIKRISHNA NAGAR OPPOSITE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA 5. V.K. ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRETOR PUSPA SINGH W/O SRI PREM PRAKASH SINGH R/O RAJENDRA BHAWAN, NEW LALJI TOLA OPPOSITE C.D.A. OFFICE, P.S- GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTT- PATNA ………………….Petitioner/ Respondent. With L.P.A. No. 74 of 2010 V.K. ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR PUSPA SINHA WIFE OF SRI PREM PRAKASH SINGH RESIDENT OF RAJENDRA BHAWAN, NEW LALJI TOLA OPPOSITE C.D.A. OFFICE, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTRICT PATNA. ………………………..Petitioner/ Appellant. Versus. 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FERTILIZER AND CHEMICAL DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. 2. DIRECTOR, INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACUTICALS LTD. DUNDEHERA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, GURGAON, HARAYANA- 122001. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. GURGAON, HARYANA- 122001. 4. REGIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMCEUTICALS LTD. S.P. VERMA ROAD. PATNA. …………………Respondents/ Respondents. 2 ----------- 8 25.03.2011 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Company in question is a sick unit and a case Vide B.I.F.R. No. 503 of 1992 is pending for rehabilitation of the Company. Under the above circumstances and keeping in view the statutory provisions under Section 22 of Sick Industries Company Special Provision Act 1985 we are of the considered opinion that even if the submissions of learned counsel for the Respondents Writ petitioner of their being admitted dues against the appellant is accepted, the writ petitioner respondent will have to put forth their claim by impleading themselves in the aforementioned case before B.I.F.R. inasmuch as the appellant Company has become a sick unit, and is protected from recovery of all dues and outstanding, be it admitted or disputed, till the pendency of the proceedings before B.I.F.R. In view of aforesaid, both the L.P.As. are allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent indicated above. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)