Sangita Dhingra Sehgal JUDGMENT
G.S. Sistani, J.
W.P.(C) 8954/2015 & CM APPL. 20131/2015 (STAY)
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to set aside the Communication/Order dated 27.6.2014.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that upon filing of the reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as "BIFR", the Registrar, by a communication/order dated 27.6.2014, has restrained the petitioner from disposing of or allowing in any manner any assets of the company, without the consent of the Board. Counsel also submits that this order was passed without any authority. It is further submitted that although the order suggests that the same has been passed as per the decision of the Board yet no order has either been passed or made available to the petitioner, nor the same is available in the records of the respondent. Ms. Dhir has placed reliance on Section 22A of Sick Industrial Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as "SICA") in support of her submission. Section 22A of SICA reads as under:
"[22A. Direction not to dispose of assets - The Board may, if it is of opinion that any direction is necessary in the interest of the sick industrial company or creditors or shareholders or in the public interest, by order in writing direct the sick industrial company not to dispose of, except with the consent of the Board, any of its assets -
(a) during the period of preparation or consideration of the scheme under Section 18; and
(b) during the period beginning with the recording of opinion by the Board for winding up of the company under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 and up to commencement of the proceedings relating to the winding up before the concerned High Court.]"
3. It has also been contended by Ms. Dhir that the order has been passed without any authority, without following the due process of law and without following the principles of natural justice, as neither any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner nor the petitioner was permitted to make submissions. It has further been contended that the Registrar and/or the Board has exceeded his jurisdiction.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that prior to the passing of the order of injunction the petitioners were not heard. It is also not in dispute that no formal order has been passed by the Board and in fact a printed notice has been issued, which we are informed is issued to every party where a reference has been filed. We are not familiar with such a procedure as an order of injunction undoubtedly would have far reaching consequences. The Rule of law provides that in case any order is passed, which would have legal consequences, the person is entitled to be heard, which is an age old well recognized principle of natural justice.
5. A perusal of Section 22A of SICA would show that a direction not to dispose of assets can also be passed by the Board if the Board is of the opinion that such direction is necessary in the interest of Sick Industrial Company or its creditors or shareholders or in the interest of public. Thus, an order is to be in........