Skip to main content

BIFR alone to decide if unit has revived

The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) does not lose control over a sick company even if it has revived on its own and its net worth has become positive. The civil court cannot claim jurisdiction on the ground that the company which was once sick has turned the corner, the Supreme Court ruled last week in the case, Ghanshyam Sarda vs M/s Shiv Shankar Trading Co. In this case, some parties moved the civil court which was resisted by others. Thus the dispute arose over the power of the civil court and BIFR. The court stated that the law gave "complete supervisory control to the BIFR over the affairs of a sick industrial company from the stage of registration of reference and questions concerning status of sickness of such company are in the exclusive domain of the BIFR." The judgment asserted that the aspects of revival of such company being completely within its exclusive domain, it is the BIFR alone, which can determine the issue whether such company now stands revived or not. "The jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of these matters stands completely excluded. The BIFR alone is empowered to determine whether the net worth has become positive as a result of which it would cease to have such jurisdiction," the court clarified.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/bifr-alone-to-decide-if-unit-has-revived-114111600838_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.