IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI 

Appearances : I. S. Bakshi for the Petitioner. Nivedita Sharma for the Respondent. 

JUDGMENT 

SHAMIM, J. 

1. This is an application by the respondent for stay of the proceedings under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code') on the ground that the respondent-company has been registered under the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('the BIFR') vide Registration No. 47/99 dated 11th February, 1999. Hence it has been prayed that the proceedings in the present suit be stayed. It is supported by an affidavit. The application has been opposed by the counsel for the plaintiff. 

2. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties at sufficient length and have vary carefully examined their rival contentions and have given my anxious thoughts thereto. 

3. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act') is in the following words : 

"Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. - (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority...." 

4. It is manifest from above that the proceedings are liable to be stayed only in those discerning few cases (a) where in respect of an industrial company an inquiry under section 16 is pending; or (b) any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation; or (c) where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending. 

5. Admittedly, the respondent have so far simply moved an application before the BIFR and the said application has been registered with them. So there is no inquiry as yet pending under section 16 of the Act nor there is any scheme referred to under section 17 under preparation. Similarly, there is no appeal pending under section 25 of the Act. 
 
6. Hence, there is no question of the stay of the proceedings by this court. The application thus premature. 

7. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner herein have simply prayed through the present petition for an appointment of an arbitrator. The present proceedings are neither a proceeding for winding up of the industrial company nor it is a proceeding for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company nor the present proceedings are for appointment of a receiver in respect thereof as envisaged under section 22. Hence the proceedings in the present case cannot be stayed. I am supported in my above view by the observations of the Supreme Court as reported in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association [1992] 8 CLA 186 (SC)/AIR 1992 SC 1439. I do not see any force in the present application. 

Dismissed.