LAW FOR ALL

It is clear from a plain reading of Section 22 A of the Act that the Board can issue a direction not to dispose of assets only to a sick industrial company. There is no dispute that the First Respondent is not a sick industrial company and that it purchased the assets from a sick industrial company in accordance with the Sanctioned Scheme. The BIFR was not correct in passing an order of status quo and directing the First Respondent not to alienate/transfer the assets by its orders dated 05.05.2008 and 30.06.2008. We express no opinion on the jurisdiction of BIFR under other provisions of the Act. It is open to the BIFR to review the implementation of the Sanctioned Scheme and pass suitable directions. As stated supra, the AAIFR held that the Second Respondent has no liability in respect of Kota units which have been sold to the First Respondent. The said findings were not challenged by the First Respondent in the Writ Petition filed in the High Court. The High Court set aside the entire order dated 11.12.2008 without taking note of the findings in favour of the Second Respondent. The petition filed for clarification by the Second Respondent was also dismissed by the High Court. The High Court ought not to have disturbed the findings in favour of the Second Respondent as they were not in challenge in the Writ Petition filed by the First Respondent.= 2016 Nov. http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=44315 - PRESI. SECY, J.K.SYNTS.MAZ.UN.,KOTA&ANR Vs. ARFAT PETROCHEMICALS PVT.LTD & ORS.