Vinod Kumar M. Gadia and anr. Vs. Sicom Ltd. - Court Judgment |
| Company |
| Mumbai High Court |
| Apr-18-2006 |
| Appeal No. 205 of 2006 in Misc. Petition No. 61 of 2000 |
| S. Radhakrishnan and ;S.J. Vazifdar, JJ. |
| [2008]141CompCas171(Bom) |
| State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 - Sections 31(1); Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 22 |
| Vinod Kumar M. Gadia and anr. |
| Sicom Ltd. |
| Abhay Pakti, Adv., i/b., Joseph and Associates |
| K. Setalwad, Adv., i/b., M.P. Rege and Co. |
| Appeal dismissed |
.....in sub-section (1) of section 34 of the 1996 act with slight modification. therefore, reference to the provisions of section 33 of the 1940 act in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of section 8 of the general clauses act, as reference to the provisions of section 34 of the 1996 act. so far as an appeal filed under section 37 of the 1996 act is concerned, perusal of section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. thus, as the provisions of article 3 of schedule-i do not apply to an application or petition filed under section 34 of the 1996 act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the arbitrator under the 1996 act. in other words nothing contained in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any award made under the 1996 act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an..........act, 1985, the above proceedings could not have been proceeded with against the appellants who were only guarantors.2. we have perused a division bench judgment of our high court in dewal singhal v. state of maharashtra [2001] 106 comp cas 587, wherein the division bench of our court has in unequivocal terms held that the only proceeding against the guarantor of a loan granted to an industrial company which has been declared sick under the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985, which is barred under section 22 of the act, is a 'suit' and nothing else. the above proceeding before the learned single judge was not a suit at all. in view of the aforesaid judgment, we cannot find any error in the judgment of the learned single judge. the appeal is devoid of any merit hence the same is dismissed.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent.
By this appeal the appellants are seeking to challenge the order dated April 25, 2005 SICOM Ltd. v. Prabhudayal B. Chamaria : 2005(3)MhLj1026 , passed by the learned single judge in the petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act. The main grievance of the appellants is that in view of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the above proceedings could not have been proceeded with against the appellants who were only guarantors.
2. We have perused a Division Bench judgment of our High Court in Dewal Singhal v. State of Maharashtra [2001] 106 Comp Cas 587, wherein the Division Bench of our court has in unequivocal terms held that the only proceeding against the guarantor of a loan granted to an industrial company which has been declared sick under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, which is barred under Section 22 of the Act, is a 'suit' and nothing else. The above proceeding before the learned single judge was not a suit at all. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we cannot find any error in the judgment of the learned single judge. The appeal is devoid of any merit hence the same is dismissed.