Respondent No.1/complainant, a stockist for the sale of cement had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the petitioner/opposite party No.1.  Petitioner had agreed to refund the said amount with interest at the rate of 12%.  Petitioner did not do any trade with the respondent No.1.  Complainant asked for refund of the amount, which was not done.  Aggrieved by this, Respondent No.1 filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the security deposit. 

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the security deposit of Rs.10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit till realization.  Rs.10,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation costs.

Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission. 

State Commission, by the impugned order, partly allowed the appeal.  The amount towards compensation was reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. 

Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has become a sick industrial company within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 3(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to SICA for brief).  BIFR, after enquiry constituted under the said Act was satisfied that the petitioner had become a sick industrial company and held an enquiry as to whether it can be rehabilitated.  BIFR appointed Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) as the operating agency.  After receiving the report from IDBI, BIFR passed the order under Section 17(3) of SICA and prepared a scheme for rehabilitation of the company as provided under Section 18 of the said Act.  The rehabilitation scheme dated 21.7.2008 has been put on record.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Under Section 22 of SICA, no proceedings can be initiated against a sick company for recovery of the outstanding dues.  That the amount has to be paid as per the scheme prepared.  Under Clause 9.2 of the scheme, which deals with the unsecured creditors, it is provided that the unsecured creditors are entitle to receive 50% of the outstanding principal dues without interest or penal interest towards full and final settlement of their dues to be paid over a period of 7 years commending from 2008-09 in equal half-yearly instalments, on interest free basis and to waive any amount payable over and above the settlement amount.

Counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that in view of the order passed under SICA, the respondent cannot be paid anything more than what has been provided under the scheme. 

In view of this, Revision Petition is partly allowed.  Order under appeal is set aside.  The petitioner is directed to pay to the respondent as per Clause 9.2 of the rehabilitation scheme dated 21.7.2008 framed by BIFR.

Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.