ORDER
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. This is a company petition filed by the petitioner a Nationalise Bank as one of the creditor of the respondent-company under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act against the respondent-company. The winding up of respondent-company is sought essentially on the ground of their inability to pay the petitioner's huge money debt as contemplated under Section 433(e) of the Act.
2. Admittedly, proceedings before the BIFR are pending under Sections 15 and 16 of SICA at the instance of respondent-company in reference case No. 172 of 2003. Under these circumstances, the bar contained under Section 22 of SICA is attracted for proceeding for winding up. In my opinion, therefore, the proper course for the petitioner would be to approach the BIFR and participate in the proceedings as one of the creditors rather than to prosecute the petition for winding up. In the event of reference being answered against the respondent, the petitioner will be free to file an either petition for winding up on the same cause of action in this Court, or to execute the money decree, if obtained by them in the meantime or if has already obtained against the respondent, as the case may be in accordance with law on the same cause of action in appropriate executing court against the company and in the event if BIFR deciding the reference in favour of the respondent, the petitioner will be at liberty to seek protection of their dues with the assistance of BIFR for making the payment depending upon the Scheme so made under the SICA, or if in the event of any recommendation made by the BIFR to this Court for winding up of this Company then the petitioner will be entitled to participate in winding up proceedings.
3. In case, if petitioner approaches the BIFR for adjudication of their dues in pending aforementioned reference then, the same shall be taken note of by the authorities concerned including O.A. while passing the appropriate orders in the BIFR proceedings in aforementioned reference registered at the instance of respondent (Company).
4. While concluding this case at the threshold, this Court is constrained to make an observation that proceedings in reference before the BIFR always consume enormous time and that they never see their end. Such delay extends undue benefit to the company (debtor) and at the same time causes immense loss and injury to creditors who are unable to recover their dues due to umbrella of Section 22 ibid operating against them. In the present case, it is clear that matter is pending before BIFR for more than 3 years with no end in site. No documents are filed to show any progress. This Court cannot proceed to wind up the company due to umbrella of Section 22 operating in the field. No efforts are made for early disposal of reference by anyone. As a result, the stalemate continue. In these circumstances, it is the duty rather legal obligation of BIFR to ensure expeditious disposal of reference one registered one way or other at an early date so that both creditor, i e., petitioner and debtor, i.e., company are able to know their fate and/or recover the outstanding dues in accordance with law. The continuance of stalemate causes damage to all and it is not in the interest of either.
While thus disposing of this petition, this Court directs the BIFR to ensure expeditious disposal of preference case No. 172 of 2003 pending before them in relation to respondent-company on merits in accordance with law preferably within one year from the date of production of this order by any of the parties, as an outer limit.