Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: perambur in Binny Limited Rep. By N. Ganesh General ... vs The Appellate Authority For Industrial ... on 1 September, 2003Matching Fragments
2.1. The petitioner company is having the following divisions:
(a) a textile division manufacturing and marketing cotton, silk and man-made fibre blended fabrics and woolen blended fabrics like cotswol and Angola having its mills, namely Buckingham and Carnatic Mills (B & C Mills) at Perambur (Chennai) and Bangalore;
(b) an Engineering Division (manufacturing and marketing of C.I. Castings, Forgings, Sugar Mill Machinery and Equipment, Rice Mills, Granite Cutting Machinery, Electric Smelting Furnaces, Mini-Cement Plants and structural fabrication, ship repair works at Meenambakkam, Chennai;
2.3. The present writ petition is thus directed against the order passed by the AAIFR dated 9.5.2003 made in Appeal No. 83 of 2003, passed under Section 25(1) of the SIC Act, confirming the orders of the BIFR dated 24.2.2003 in Case No. 48 of 1993, refusing to sanction the revised draft rehabilitation scheme submitted by the petitioner on 14.2.2003; declining the request of the petitioner company for sale of 1260 grounds of land situated at Perambur, Chennai for Rs. 60 Crores as provided in the scheme dated 14.2.2003; and directing the sale thereof by advertisement inviting tenders through the Asset Sale Committee (ASC) comprising of the Operating Agency (IDBI), State Bank of India, Indian Bank (Lead Bank) and the petitioner company.
10.10. In spite of acceptance of the impugned scheme by the Secured creditors and workers, the BIFR by order dated 24.2.2003 refused to accord sanction for the impugned scheme holding that the proposal for sale of 1260 grounds of land was not transparent as the sale price was lower than Rs. 75 crores which was originally offered by CREL, and the impugned offer has not come through the Asset Sale Committee. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that constitution of Asset Sale Committee is not mandatory, as the same is nowhere contemplated under the SIC Act. It is only a procedure evolved by the BIFR, themselves, of course to satisfy that the transaction with respect to the sale of the assets of the sick unit is fair and reasonable. While rejecting the scheme dated 14.2.2003, the BIFR also constituted the Asset Sale Committee, consisting of the Operating Agency (IDBI), State Bank of India, Indian Bank (Lead Bank) and the petitioner company. Besides, the BIFR required the Asset Sale Committee to advertise the sale of 1260 grounds of land at Perambur and also gave an option to the petitioner company to locate the buyer and finalise the deal through the Asset Sale Committee, and the petitioner company/promoter would be free to locate the buyers and finalise the deal through mutal negotiation, if no bids are received in response to the advertisement or the bids received are not acceptable to the Asset Sale Committee. It is not in dispute that the constituent members of the Asset Sale Committee had already given their consent for the sale of 1260 grounds of land at Perambur for Rs. 60 Crores. This aspect of the case was not either weighed or considered by the authorities, viz., the BIFR as well as the AAIFR. The failure of appreciation of the above aspect of the case and non application of the mind by the authorities, requires the interference of this Court in the impugned proceedings of the BIFR and the AAIFR.
(iii) the proposed purchaser (87th respondent) shall deposit the entire balance sale price of Rs. 56.10 Crores (Rs. 62.10 Crores - Rs. 6 Crores already paid), for the sale of 1260 grounds of land at Perambur, Chennai, in an interest bearing 'No lien account', with the Operating Agency (IDBI) within ten days from 3.10.2003 (or) on or before 13.10.2003, whichever is earlier;
(iv) the Operating Agency (IDBI) shall move the BIFR for the sanction of the impugned scheme which also provides for the sale of 1260 grounds of land at Perambur, Chennai that belongs to the petitioner company, and the BIFR shall pass appropriate orders sanctioning the impugned scheme and giving consent for the sale of the said 1260 grounds of land at Perambur, Chennai that belongs to the petitioner company, within ten days from 13.10.2003 (or) on or before 23.10.2003, whichever is earlier. Since all necessary parties have expressed their no objection to the impugned scheme before this Court, no further hearing before BIFR is required in this regard;