Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985

31 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M/S. MADURA COATS LIMITEDversusM/S. MODI RUBBER LTD. & ANR.

2016 INSC 44229 June 2016Dismissed

Madura Coats Ltd sought to enforce a winding‑up order against Modi Rubber Ltd. The Company Court ordered winding up, but Modi Rubber filed a reference to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). The High Court stayed the windi

M/S MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. & ANRversusBIFR& ORS.

2016 INSC 10729 January 2016Dismissed

Madras Petrochem Ltd. and another filed appeals challenging a Delhi High Court order that stayed the winding‑up of the company before the BIFR. The core dispute was whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) overrides the Sick Industri

M/S. S.F. ENGINEERversusMETAL BOX INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

2014 INSC 22328 March 2014Dismissed

The landlord (Mis. S.F. Engineer) sought eviction of its tenant Metal Box India Ltd. and the tenant's former employee under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act, alleging unlawful sub‑letting. The trial and appellate courts held that the tenant had not part‑ed with legal possession nor received any monetary consider

KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD.versusM/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. & ORS.

2014 INSC 73827 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

KSL & Industries Ltd. appealed against a Delhi High Court order that set aside a Debt Recovery Tribunal decision allowing the appellant to recover Rs. 25.26 crore from M/s. Arihant Threads Ltd. The dispute centered on whether the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) – specifically Section 22,

FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED & ORS.versusM/S COROMANDAL SACKS PRIVATE LIMITED

2024 INSC 34826 April 2024Disposed off

M/s Coromandal Sacks supplied HDPE bags to Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd (FCIL) and sued for recovery of unpaid amounts, alleging price differences, liquidated damages, penalties and loss of unsold bags. FCIL contended it was a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,

YASH DEEP TREXIM PRIVATE LIMITEDversusNAMOKAR VINIMAY PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2013 INSC 64823 September 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered appeals filed by Yash Deep Trexim Private Limited against Namokar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. and others, challenging a Calcutta High Court order that applied the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) to a foreign company registered in India. The Court examined whether the r

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON LONDON BRANCHversusZENITH INFOTECH LIMITED

2017 INSC 16521 February 2017Disposed off

Zenith Infotech Ltd filed a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The Registrar of the Board refused to register the reference on the ground that the company was not an "industrial company" within the meaning of

BISHAMBHAR PRASADversusM/S. ARFAT PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. AND ORS

2023 INSC 40620 April 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the status of the Large-Scale Industrial Area (LIA) in Kota, Rajasthan, and held that the land has remained under the uninterrupted ownership and lessor relationship of the State Government, not transferred to RIICO by the 1979 order. It found that the leases granted to JKSL and later to Arfa

K. C. NINANversusKERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

2023 INSC 56019 May 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals concerning whether electricity arrears of a previous owner can be recovered from a subsequent owner who acquired the premises through auction or other transfers. It held that the duty of a distribution licensee to supply electricity under Section 43 of the Electricity Act,

MODI RUBBER LIMITEDversusCONTINENTAL CARBON INDIA LTD.

2023 INSC 24617 March 2023Disposed off

Modi Rubber Ltd., a sick industrial company, obtained a rehabilitation scheme approved by the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, which scaled down the dues of unsecured creditors, including Continental Carbon India Ltd. The Delhi High Court held that an unsecured creditor could ref

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusV. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR.

2018 INSC 71114 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

State Bank of India (SBI) sought recovery of a loan from a corporate debtor whose managing director, V. Ramakrishnan, had also given a personal guarantee. After the corporate debtor defaulted, SBI invoked SARFAESI provisions and the debtor filed an insolvency petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016

GHANSHYAM SARDAversusM/S. SHIV SHANKAR TRADING CO. & ORS.

2014 INSC 77513 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute concerning J.K. Jute Mill Company Ltd., a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), whose net worth had reportedly turned positive. The plaintiff sought a civil court declaration that the company was no longer a sick company,

EITZEN BULK A/SversusASHAPURA MLNECHEM LTD. & ANR.

2016 INSC 42013 May 2016Disposed off

Eitzen Bulk A/S and Ashapura Minechem Ltd entered into a charter party that contained an arbitration clause specifying London as the seat and English law as the governing law. A dispute arose and was arbitrated in London, resulting in an award against Ashapura. Ashapura sought to set aside the award in India under Sect

JAIPUR METALS & ELECTRICALS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION THROUGH GENERAL SECRETARY MR. TEJ RAM MEENAversusJAIPUR METALS & ELECTRICALS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS.

2018 INSC 119612 December 2018Leave granted

The employees' union of Jaipur Metals & Electricals Ltd challenged a High Court order that refused to transfer winding‑up proceedings, filed under Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and set aside an NCLT order admitting a Section 7 insolvency application by Alch

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (ADMN.) & ANR.versusM/S. GTC INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.

2016 INSC 118312 May 2016Disposed off

Mis GTC Industries Ltd., a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, was placed under a BIFR‑sanctioned rehabilitation scheme (SS‑02) that provided, among other reliefs, a provision to "consider" waiving interest and penalty. The scheme ran from 31 Mar 2003 to 31 Mar 2011, but the

K.K. SINGHAL & ORS.versusSTEEL STRIPS LTD.

2014 INSC 8459 December 2014Dismissed

The appellants K.K. Singhal & Ors. issued 33 cheques that were dishonoured, leading the respondent Steel Strips Ltd. to file 26 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The parties later entered into a settlement at Chandigarh, where the respondent agreed to withdraw the complaints in exchange fo

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITEDversusMR. AMIT GUPTA & ORS.

2021 INSC 1638 March 2021Dismissed

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd (GUVNL) allocated a 25‑MW solar project to Astonfield Solar (the corporate debtor) under a 25‑year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) executed in 2010. After severe flood damage the plant operated at a fraction of capacity and the corporate debtor was declared a non‑performing asset, prompting

BANK OF MAHARASHTRAversusPANDURANG KESHAV GORWARDKAR & ORS

2013 INSC 3177 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of Maharashtra obtained a recovery certificate against Paper and Pulp Conversions Ltd. and, through the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), sold the company's movable assets, retaining a portion of the proceeds. The company was subsequently ordered to be wound up and an official liquidator was appointed. The workmen

KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. & ANR.versusM/S. L.M.L. LIMITED & ORS.

2010 INSC 2887 May 2010Dismissed

L.M.L. Ltd., a two-wheeler manufacturer, was declared a Relief Undertaking and later a Sick Company due to market downturn. It applied to Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (KESCO) for reduction of its contracted load from 8 MVA to 1.25 MVA effective 1 April 2006, a decision approved by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Re

RAHEJA UNVIERSAL LIMITEDversusNRC LIMITED & ORS.

2012 INSC 777 February 2012Dismissed

NRC Ltd, a sick industrial company, entered into a memorandum of understanding and subsequent agreements with K. Raheja Universal Ltd for the sale of 344 acres of land to raise funds for restructuring. The sale was only partially paid and the company later sought a corporate debt restructuring (CDR) scheme, which was a

K. SASHIDHARversusINDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS.

2019 INSC 1485 February 2019Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered appeals by K. Sashidhar challenging the rejection of resolution plans for two corporate debtors, KS&PIPL and IIL, by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The CoC had approved the plans with less than the statutory 75% voting share of financial creditors, leading the NCLT to deem the plans reje

DUNLOP INDIA LIMITEDversusA.P. RAHNA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 3534 May 2011Dismissed

The dispute concerned eviction of Dunlop India Limited from premises leased under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlord alleged that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for more than six months without reasonable cause, first from June 1998 and later from September 2001. The ten

SABARMATI GAS LIMITEDversusSHAH ALLOYS LIMITED

2023 INSC 104 January 2023Dismissed

Sabarmati Gas Ltd. entered into a gas‑sale agreement with Shah Alloys Ltd., which later defaulted on payments. The respondent was declared a 'sick company' by the BIFR, invoking a moratorium under SICA that barred legal recovery until the Code came into force on 1‑Dec‑2016. After issuing a demand notice under Section 8

PRAVIN GADA AND ANOTHERversusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 5573 December 2012Disposed off

The Supreme Court dealt with the sale of immovable property of Jay Electric Wire Corporation Ltd., a company under liquidation, which had been sold to the appellants for Rs. 2.50 crore in 2006. Secured creditors and the workmen's union challenged the sale, alleging procedural irregularities, unfair price, and the limit

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITEDversusREG. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, JALPAIGURI

2014 INSC 4572 July 2014Dismissed

The case concerned a tea estate (Mathura Tea Estate) that defaulted on EPF contributions. After the estate was taken over by Eveready Industries (later McLeod Russel India Ltd.), the new management argued it was not the "employer" liable for damages under Section 148 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search