Judgment ( 1 ) MR. Shetye applies for an adjournment in order to enable the plaintiffs to apply before the Appellate Authority for permission to continue this suit and for permission to apply for Interim Reliefs in the suit. ( 2 ) FACTS are that the claim of the plaintiff bank is in the region of app. Rs. 42 crores. The 1st Defendant Company applied under the Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The Board formed an opinion that the 1st defendant Company should be wound up. The Board granted to the plaintiffs permission to file a suit. This permission is annexed as Exhibit A-H to the plaint. ( 3 ) I am informed that in view of the decision of the Board i. e. that the 1st Defendant Company be wound up. A Company Petition for winding up is accepted and is pending admission before this court. ( 4 ) AGAINST the decision of the Board the workers of the 1st Defendant Company filed Writ petition No. 1021 of 1995 in the Calcutta High court. The Calcutta High Court passed an order dated 23rd June, 1995 in following terms:there will be an interim order in terms of prayer (g) of the Writ Petition till 7th June, 1995. Prayer (g) of that petition read as follows : (g) An order of injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 and/or each of them their servants and/or agents from giving any effect to and/or any further and/or from taking any action and/or further action to and/or on the basis of purported conclusion arrived at on 7th September, 1994 and opinion formed by it on 19th April, 1995 that respondent No. 4 is not likely to become viable and that it is just and equitable that it should be wound up to any manner whatsoever. ( 5 ) ON 7th July, 1995 the 1st Defendant Company filed Appeal No. 77 of 1995 before the Appellate authority against the decision of the Board. I am informed that in view of the order of the Calcutta high Court, the Appellate Authority has adjourned the Appeal sine die. There appears to be no reason why the appeal should have been adjourned sine die. The order of the Calcutta High Court, as shown to Court, is only as set out above. It does not prevent the Appellate Authority from proceeding with the Appeal. There appears to be no reason why the appeal should have been adjourned sine die. The order of the Calcutta High Court, as shown to Court, is only as set out above. It does not prevent the Appellate Authority from proceeding with the Appeal. In fact, it would be better and advisable that in the absence of an order staying the Appeal, the Appellate Authority proceeded with the Appeal on merits. ( 6 ) MR. Cooper strenuously urged that the Suit filed on 21st November, 1995, does not lie as no permission has been taken from the Appellate authority. He submits that as the Suit does not lie, no adjournment should be granted. He submits that on the same ground the Ad-interim relief should be vacated. He submits that otherwise Court is rendering nugatory the provision of section 22 of the Sick Industrial (Special Provisions) Act (hereinafter called the said Act ). He submits that court should give effect to statutory provisions. He submits that every party who goes before the board under the said Act is bound to be a debtor. He submits that merely because a party is debtor and not in a position to repay is not a ground for not enforcing the provisions of the said Act. He submits that the said Act has been enacted with the laudable object of reviving Sick Companies. ( 7 ) I have fully heard Mr. Cooper. In my view, the provisions of the said Act are not being ignored. In my prima facie view, section 22 does not require prior permission of the Appellate authority. Prima facie it appears that permission can be obtained even at a subsequent stage. Even otherwise to be noted that the Board had already given permission to file suit. Plaintiffs had no knowledge of the Appeal having been filed till defendants Filed their Affidavit-in-Reply dated 22nd December, 1995. Thus at time when plaintiffs filed the suit, they had acted in pursuance of permission granted to them by the Board. Thus the suit would lie. Now all that they are asking for is an adjournment in order to enable them to get permission to proceed with the Suit. Thus at time when plaintiffs filed the suit, they had acted in pursuance of permission granted to them by the Board. Thus the suit would lie. Now all that they are asking for is an adjournment in order to enable them to get permission to proceed with the Suit. ( 8 ) ALSO in my view, Court has to keep in mind the fact that so far as this debtor is concerned even the Board has already opined that the 1st defendant Company should be wound up. Court also cannot ignore fact that Rs. 42 Crores are payable to a Public Financial Institution. These are public monies. ( 9 ) IN my view, there is absolutely no provision in law, which prevents Courts from granting an adjournment, in order to enable a creditor to get permission from the Appellate authority. There is absolutely no reason why the ad-interim order already granted should not continue. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, I adjourn this Notice of motion for sixteen weeks. Order accordingly.