High Court Karnataka High Court

Gangavati Sugar Staff And Workrs … vs Board For Indl. & Finan. … on 23 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Gangavati Sugar Staff And Workrs … vs Board For Indl. & Finan. … on 23 September, 2008
Author: A.S.Bopanna
 

5
E
E
5
3
E
3
L.)
5
I
5
E
I
5
"2"
3

'or 1:-'turn I

M .20 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF SEPTEMBER    _

BEFORE

THE HOIWBLE MR. JUSTICE' Agsl.$Bo;5ANNA%V  ' , '

W.P. No.4466/ 1993 rGM::%REsLC;W¥%A V 1 
W.P.No.36 19/ 1998 & _W,P.No;3867_'j 3993'   

m w.1>.xo.4466 1' 

1. GANGAVATI SUGA-RS S§'I'AFF £ss WORKS ASSN.,
PRAC}AT'ZNAGAR}383 253,  _  ' 
GANGAVATE      
REP. BY ITS (.'gEf£ERA1;SECi?E'PAVRY,;g
Mr.MosEs"::.ELL¥:._ ,  '  * ' 

2. KARIi!A'I'AKA 3*: ,«'z.'_§:' 'FARvMEvRS' Assn,
GANGAVA'1'I 'mLUK,~.  V.  
;<oPPAL.;::z'mR1c:T  _  '
REP. 13YI'f'~S I;1s'1*1etm"._s5:(:RE'rARY,
Mr:,I*:PPERU'DRAswAm .. PETi'I'iONERS

 * {BY .'§§f;R:,AC;OPAL, A:}Vo'::ATE)
''''--.A1~zVz$:''--V '' " 

1. *.é€z:l'§*Q_ié--«;§i"a".§ R2)
sx-i.A.vE2s41{;x1'AcsaAW;x.;=i', ADV. FOR' R3)

' '~-.('I'H-ES" w..P~.;s :"«'rLEU UNDER A§2'I'.226 as 22? 09' Tm:
 ,co1szs':'rra.rr:oN._, op' INDEA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER
 D'€'D;'29;'9..95"PASSED BY TEE BOARQ OF ENQUSTRLAL AND
L'---F«'1reANc;.a,1';--«REcNsTRUcr:0N (R-1) IN CASE 950.221/1998 VIBE

AP?N'EXURE+--.3§j ,§§ND THE ORDER DATEE) 15.12.1997 VIDE
AN?-EE_'.XUv_§%E~_I)'.w'BY THE RESPONDENT No.2.)

1

fl'



 -- -- -- -v~r1n-'Ir1u"V-I\rI I H\Jl'1 \.«\JIJKI 'Jr RRKIVAEAKA      

Q? W.P.§o.3867 I L99§ IGMRES [

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPREZSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES   >-
AND COMMERCE,  V J _
MSBUILDINGS,   "  , "
BANGALORE 566 001. , ..,'..PEamoN,Ere., ' '

(By Sri.M.KUMAR, ADDLGOVT. ADv§cATEj    

AND: ¢

1. BOARD FOR mDUs°rR:A:;ea; F1M.§i:<3:A_:;     
RECONSTRUCTION,  _   .. '   
1, 'I'OL.S'I'OY MARC~--.._ *
NEW DELHI :10  

APPELLATE A1;'PIeEORi--'I'Y ¥~"-{JR EPJDUSTRIAL
85 FINANCEAE, R5i::QNsTRuc'<rroN 

mm FLOC}?,}EEEVF;i€ PRAKASH '

25, K;_xs*rURBA._--a$4AR EDIT 85 INVESTMENT

CQ4RPO;RA'FIjC3N OF INDIA,
510.163'; ABACKBAY RECLAMA33 ON,
MUMi"-3511400 029.

* INDUS'I'RIAL FINANCE CORPORATION
 ow ZNDIA, BANK OF BARODA BUILDING,
-- "N.16, SANSA3 MARC},

flaw DELHI me 001.

STAT E BANK OF' INDIA,
iNDUS'I'RIAL F'§NANCE BRANCH,

I

3

Q

1"' i-I'§iI.I "l'\IIlII-lhl\lIul'\i Il\_ nu.-nan... .._....-



. -. 'Ir'llIT'I I III:-II I \4\lIJl\I I-IT l\I'\KI'l'if'§l"'\      

No.25, RESIDENCY PLAZA,
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 002.

8. BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND
FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION,
ACCOUNTS SECTION, CREDIT
WING, CANARA BANK, 112, O  _
J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE -- 560 002" " A

9. CORPORATION BANK, HEAD
OFFICE, MANGALDEVI TEMPLE
ROAD, MANGALORE 575 001., O'

10. SYNDICATE BANK, _ 
P.B.NO.1. MAISHPAL ---.5'.75_ 115';

11. STATE BANK OF' HYDERABAD,---.  
HEAD OFFICE, Guwpozmbzsey,' .., 

HYDERA}3ADi~.5GO_17Tf,    V' LOVRESPONENTS

(By Sd.M.V.VEDACHALA,"ADVI .5012' 12.41 .
Sri.RAMI"§IAS,_.-ADV. '§=roR":?&;2,8s'3.,.,~  
sn.sANJA¥,BvA.:tf1A, ADv."F<3-§Am*2211;r;E,V ADV. FOR R9}

-"v.,.;THzS°%w..1§ ES Ié:'LEa--1--«'UNDER AR'r.225 85 227 0}? THE

CON§TI'FU'I'ION«,_OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

E5TD;".Z9.S*,9i:E£iY R~._1 IN CASE N023: 0:? 1993 VIDE ANNEXURE-
A A_r»ID*'1'_H--E 'ORDER DATED 15.12.1997 BY R-2 IN APPEAL

No. 133r01=* 19$:-.s'Av1'm'.«: ANNEXURE-B 35 ETC.

""'The$é'vW.Ps. coming on for final hearing this day,

 .  the 'made the fo1£oWi;ng:-

ORDER

In all these three petitions, the order dated

‘Oi”»»..O;’Q9.9.1995 passed by the Board for Erxciustrial and

J)

‘$

nu-1 – DIV!’

. …»..«…u my muuu-umnn r-nun uuux: Ur KAKNAIAKA NIGH CH

Financial Reconsfrrmction {in short “BIFR”) in case

No.23}/1988 and afiirmation of the same

Appellate Authority for Industrial and
Constmction by order dated 1997″ ” ‘
No.133/1995 are called in quesmua; AA

are impugned at A1mexuree;_B- .5; D’ Atoitixe The ” %’

further prayer made the is for to
direct the Govemmeht– reconsider the
proposal to vnv you “E;/I/s Gangavati

Sugars ‘ ‘

” ~ I.F.R. would indicate
that t}1eA’;E?g.I.I5.R…V_.heefeeommended that the Company

(3eur1;.g,e: karnataka to initiate necessary

A. ‘matter for winding up of the
Gangavati Sugar Ltd. The fact that

Z ‘ such recommendafion made by the
Company Court had considered the matter
‘A to winding up of M/s Gangavati Sugar Ltd.,
hot in dispute. In fact, a perusal of the order sheet

VA ” ” by this Court would indicate that these

)2

J
I

f’\l’\’\ l_l£\n§ I.l\n.n\..tn:uLn. gnu.

,3;

.5
I
.3
§
3
5
:3.

O
5
8
I
9
3
E
5
A.

D
3

I

petitions were directed to be listed after disposal of

winding up proceedings before the ‘it.

is stated at the Bar that subsequentiy K
before the Company Court has V
there is an order of winding up

by the Company Court. In of the A

order dated 29.9. 1995 of the same
by the Appellate Authoiitgf 15.5.1997
has already second prayer
made with? of rehabilitation,
the said arise at this stage
since, have been considered by

the V_:C3oa~ii?t.A”v.’IV’herefore, keeping these aspects

V’ in vie€ir,:,.,t31e”i–petitiofis”‘éi1’e disposed of as not surviving for

rgoiisiéeiafioii this stage.

4”3, However; it is made ciear, if at all any issue

to be considered in this petition stiil

it is open to any of the parties to dime

‘ to make an appropriate application in this
i A regard to be considered by this Court.

i

av
\