| The court had fixed the next date of hearing on August 4. |
| According to the bank, it was aggrieved by the extreme delay on part of the board in adjudicating and disposing of the reference application within the specified time frame. |
| It had filed applications in August 2005 and March 2006 under Section 22(1) of SICA before BIFR seeking permission to initiate recovery proceedings against JKUUL before the competent fora including Debt Recovery Tribunal, the bank petition said, adding its huge amount of public money has got blocked with the company, thus causing grave financial loss to it. |
| It further stated that the beneficial provision of SICA should not be extended to industrial companies which indulge in shady and dishonest practices. and cause serious prejudice to the public and as well as bonafide creditors. |
| According to the bank, as part of the consortia of banks including Punjab National Bank (PNB) and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, it had granted certain working capital facility to JKUUL on the security of book debts in 1996. |
| The PNB had contributed around 67 per cent of the share capital among the consortium, it added. |
| However, due to certain technical and production problems, the company stopped its production in 2003 and had failed to pay its debts. |
| On reference filed under Section 15(1) of the SICA, the BIFR had declared JKUUL as a sick company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(O) of the SICA and had appointed ICICI Bank as the operating agency to examine its viability of rehabilitation scheme. |
| However, the creditors including PNB had raised several objections to the reference. |
| The bank consortia while issuing a recall notice to JKUUL had also classified its accounts as non-performing assets, the bank said. |
Top Section
Explore Business Standard