B.I.F.R. vs M/S.Umi Special Steel Ltd.Regd on 14 October, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
     Company Petition No. 2 of 2002
               ---

Board of Industrial and Financial
Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.)                      ...     ...     Petitioner
                          Versus
M/s. UMI Steel Limited                         ...     ...     Respondent
                  ---


CORAM        : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
                    ---
For the Official Liquidator : Mr. B. Mishra, in person
                              Mrs. M. Patra, Advocate
For the SASF-IDBI-IFCI-SCB : Mr. J. K. Rai, Advocate
For the Workmen             : Mr. Sunil Kr. Mahto, Advocate
                            : Mr. Awanish Shankar, Advocate
                            : Mr. Lakhan Sharma, Advocate
For the LIC                 : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
For the UCO Bank            : Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate
For the Bank of India       : M/s. Rajesh Kumar, Amit Kumar &
                              Manindra Kr. Sinha, Advocate

                    ---

Order No. 107                      Dated, 14th day of October 2011
             I. A. No. 2555 of 2011:
             Mr. J. K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
- M/s. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. submitted that
petitioner may be substituted in place of Industrial Investment Bank of
India (IIBI) for the reasons mentioned in this petition.
             Heard Official Liquidator, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, Mr.
Awanish Shankar and Mr. Lakhan Sharma appearing for the workmen,
Mr. Sachin Kumar appearing for the LIC, Mr. Rajesh Kumar appearing
for the Bank of India and Mr. Rajan Raj appearing for the UCO Bank.
             Mr. Rai submitted that he represents other secured
creditors namely IDBI, IFCI and Standard Chartard Bank and they
have got no objection to this substitution.
             On being satisfied with the grounds, the petitioner - M/s.
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. is substituted in place
of IIBI.
             This I. A. stands disposed of.
             I. A. No. 2554 of 2011:
             This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
substituted company for condonation of delay in lodging the claim.
                                             -2-
                               Mr. Rai submitted that copy of the I.A. was served on
                  almost all the parties about a month back. However, he will serve a
                  copy of this I.A. on the parties on which it was not served, in course of
                  the day.
                               Official Liquidator will also supply copy of his report dated
                  7.10.2011

(at flag 262) to all the parties appearing, in course of the
day, if not already served.

Objection/reply to this I.A., if any by the parties must be
filed by 08.11.2011.

Put up this case on 11.11.2011.
As prayed, let a copy of the order be handed over to the
Official Liquidator.

(R. K. Merathia, J.)

R. Shekhar Cp 3