O. P. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision against the order dated 5-12-1994 passed by Civil Judge, Saharanpur. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the order are that respondent No. 1 Central Bank of India filed a suit against revisionist Foremost Industries (India) Ltd. for the recovery of more than twenty two crores of rupees. The suit was filed by the Bank on 8-10-1994. The case of the revisionist is that prior to the filing of the suit by the Bank the revisionist company had made a reference under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act of 1985 (hereinafter called the Act of 1985 ). Reference made by the company was registered as case No. 116/ 94 by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called the Board) on 26-8-1994. On 18-10-1994 the Board permitted the Company to file by 31/12/1994 the audited balance-sheet of the company for the year 1993-94 duly approved in the Annual General Meeting. The Company filed an application before Civil Judge, Saharanpur for stay of proceedings in the suit on the ground that an enquiry under Section 16 of the Act of 1985 is pending before the Board and, therefore, under Section 22 of the Act of 1985 the suit cannot proceed. It may also be mentioned that on 25-10-1994 the Civil Judge had passed two orders in the suit filed by the Central Bank against the company. One of the orders passed on 25-10-1994 is Annexure- 2 to the stay application and by this order the learned Civil Judge restrained the Company and its Directors from alienating or transferring the property mentioned in the order. By the second order passed on the same day (Annexure 3) the learned Civil Judge appointed an advocate as Commissioner and the Commissioner was directed to prepare an inventory of the assets of the Company and it was further directed that the Commissioner may sign the account books, stock register etc. and may also get the same signed by officers, Auditors etc. of the Company. The Company prayed that the operation of these orders may be stayed in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1985. By the impugned order dated 5-12-1994 the learned Civil Judge refused this prayer and rejected the application filed by the Company. Hence this revision. of the Company. The Company prayed that the operation of these orders may be stayed in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1985. By the impugned order dated 5-12-1994 the learned Civil Judge refused this prayer and rejected the application filed by the Company. Hence this revision. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri P. N. Saxena, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Yaswant Verma, learned standing counsel for the Central Bank of India. It is an admitted fact that the remaining respondents Nos. 2 to 9 are pro forma respondents. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that a reference was made by the Company before the Board on 30-6-1994 and, therefore, the suit did not lie and could not be proceeded with further except with the consent of the Board. In support of this contention the learned Counsel for the revisionist has cited 1993 (1) JT (SC) 310 : (1993 AIR SCW 991) Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. It was held in the above case that the provisions of the Act of 1985 will prevail even in those cases where the State Financial Corporation Act of 1951 is applicable. In the case before this Court the State Financial Corporation Act of 1951 is not applicable and, therefore, this ruling is not of much help to the revisionist. ( 5 ) THE short point which arises for consideration in the present case is the date on which the enquiry under Section 16 of the Act of 1985 can be said to have commenced. There is no dispute that once the enquiry under Section 16 commences the provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1985 will apply and the proceedings in the suit will have to be stayed. The contention on behalf of the Company is that the enquiry commences as soon as a reference is made by the company to the Board under Section 15 of the Act of 1985. This contention is however not correct because the registration of the case by the Board is only a ministerial act. A reference made by the Company without filing the required papers is not a reference which can bar the proceedings in the suit. This contention is however not correct because the registration of the case by the Board is only a ministerial act. A reference made by the Company without filing the required papers is not a reference which can bar the proceedings in the suit. a Sick Industrial company under Section 3 (c) of the Act of 1985 is defined as a Industrial company which has at the end of any financial year accumulated loss equal to or exceeding its entire net worth. In order to qualify as a sick Industrial Company it is required that the balance-sheet approved in the Annual General Meeting of the Company is filed along with the reference. ( 6 ) ANNEXURE-1 to the stay petition shows that the Board considered the matter on 18- 10-1994 at 12-00 noon and it was observed that the Bench pointed out that the Company was not a Sick Industrial Company within the meaning of Section 3 (c) of the Act in terms of its audited balance-sheet as on 31-3-1993. The reference was incomplete since it was not based upon the audited accounts of the year ending March, 1994 based on which the reference has been filed. ( 7 ) AFTER making these remarks the Board permitted the Company to submit the audited balance-sheet for the year 1993-94 duly approved in the Annual General Meeting by 31-12-1994. It is, therefore, apparent that the Board was of the opinion that the reference was incomplete. When the reference itself was not complete, the Company is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Section 22 of the Act of 1985. ( 8 ) IT may also be mentioned that the working of the Board is regulated by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Regulations of 1987. Regulation 19 (7) lays down as under: if the informant fails to rectify the defect within the time allowed under sub-regulation (5), the Secretary, or as the case may be, the Registrar, may by order decline to register the reference. The reference, so declined to be registered, shall be deemed not be have been made. ( 9 ) THIS provision clearly shows that if the Company fails to rectify the defect pointed out by the Board by 31-12-1994, the reference shall be deemed not to have been made. It cannot therefore be said that an enquiry under Section 16 of the Act of 1985 has commenced. ( 9 ) THIS provision clearly shows that if the Company fails to rectify the defect pointed out by the Board by 31-12-1994, the reference shall be deemed not to have been made. It cannot therefore be said that an enquiry under Section 16 of the Act of 1985 has commenced. The learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the Explanation given under Section 16 of the Act of 1985. This Explanation reads as under: for the purposes of this sub-section, an inquiry shall be deemed to have commanded upon the receipt by the Board of any reference or information or upon its own knowledge reduced to writing by the Board a perusal of the Explanation shows that it is confined to sub-section (3) of Section 16. Therefore, it cannot be said that merely filing an application under Section 15 of the Act of 1985 is sufficient for the enquiry to commence. (Emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) 1993 (1) JT (SC) 310 : (1993 AIR SCW 991), which has been cited by the revisionist shows that in the reported case the Company wrote a letter to the Board on 20-8-88. The Board replied that the Company should apply in Form A. The Company applied in Form A showing losses incurred up to 31/03/1990. The Board held a preliminary meeting on 12-9-1991. On 20-7-1992 the Board held that the Company is not a Sick Industrial Company under Section 3 (1) (c) of the Act of 1985. On 20-8-1992 the Company filed an appeal and on the same day requested the Financial Corporation to stay its hands. This shows that an application for stay was filed more than two years after the filing of the original application of 1988. In the instant case the revisionist has filed an application for stay of proceedings shortly after filing the application before the Board though the application filed by it before the Board was defective. Even before rectifying these defects the Company rushed to the Court with an application for stay of proceedings. ( 11 ) IN view of the above discussion it cannot be said that a proper reference was before the Board and that an enquiry u/ S. 16 of the Act of 1985 had commenced at the time when the application for stay of the proceedings in the suit was filed by the Company. ( 11 ) IN view of the above discussion it cannot be said that a proper reference was before the Board and that an enquiry u/ S. 16 of the Act of 1985 had commenced at the time when the application for stay of the proceedings in the suit was filed by the Company. A similar question arose before this Court in the case of M/s. Harsh Tractor Ltd. v. S. K. Srivastava Deputy Labour Commissioner. The judgment is reported in 1988 All WC 334 at page 339-340 this Court observed that the registration of a reference under Regn. 19 of the Regulations framed under Section 13 of the said Act is a purely ministerial act. It is only after the Board deems it fit under Section 16 (4) of the Act to make an enquiry into industrial Company and thereupon appoints a Special Director that an enquiry can be properly said to be pending within the meaning of Section 22 of the Act. The Court further observed that we do not agree that registration of the application by itself can make, the enquiry pending. No benefit under Section 16 read with Section 22 of the Act of 1985 can therefore be claimed by the petitioner at this stage. As a result of the above discussion the revision is hereby dismissed. This order will not prevent the Company from applying again at a proper stage. Revision dismissed. .