Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications
Friday, Mar 22, 2002
Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Friday, Mar 22, 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate
-
Sick Units BIFR rejects Dunlop's relief application again Richa Mishra
NEW DELHI, March 21 THE Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction has once more rejected the relief application filed by Dunlop India Ltd. Dunlop had moved an application on February 19 for passing appropriate orders staying the operations of contracts, assurance of property, agreements, settlements, awards including payment of arrears of rental charges, standing orders, attachment of the company's properties etc, the Bench said. Rejecting the application vide its recent order, the BIFR Bench observed that the "considerations, which weighed with us in rejecting the earlier application of the company are still valid. Our decision has also been upheld by the appellate authority. We, therefore, find no justification for granting the relief sought by the company". The Bench recalled that earlier also Dunlop had appealed under Section 22(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) for suspending legal cases filed against the company including tenanted properties. Besides, at the hearing held on November 8, 2000, the company had pressed for consideration of its request, the Bench noted. Keeping in view the fact that neither Dunlop nor the secured creditors had made serious efforts in formulating a rehabilitation scheme expeditiously despite ample opportunities having been given and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chamundi Mopeds Ltd, the Bench had rejected the application of the company seeking relief. Dunlop had subsequently filed an appeal before the appellate authority, against the BIFR decision. Dunlop India has again filed an application on February 19, seeking relief under Section 22(3) of SICA, the Bench observed. In its application, the company referred to BIFR's order of October 19, 2001, directing it to file specific application seeking the board's permission in each and every case where relief was sought under Section 22(3) and that the board will decide the matter after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case, giving due notice to the concerned parties against whom immunity was sought. Meanwhile, the Bench had received the orders of the appellate authority dated February 13, dismissing the appeal filed against BIFR's order by the company, the board observed. "We further notice that in their application dated February 19, which is under consideration, the applicants have failed to inform us of the decision of the appellate authority dismissing its appeal against BIFR's order," the Bench noted. "The non-disclosure of this fact is a serious omission and can be construed to have been done with an ulterior motive," the Bench said.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
Stories in this Section |
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line
|