JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the sole respondent. 2. In this revision application, the common order dated 20.11.2014, passed in Money Execution (Arbitration) Case Nos. 07/2006, 08/2006, 9/2006 and 10/2006, by the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati is put under challenge. 3. The present petitioner is the transferee Company of the erstwhile the transferor Company, Bharat Heavy Plates & Vessels Ltd (in short, BHPVL) which was declared a sick industry by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short BIFR) vide letter dated 4.10.2004 under Section 22 (3) of the Sick Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as the SICA, 1985). The transferee Company accepted the liability of the transferor company towards the contractors, unsecured creditors etc. Amalgamation of M/s. BHPVL took place with the transferee company, M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (referred to as BHEL hereinafter) in the month of August, 2013. Prior to the said declaration and subsequent amalgamation, there was contract works between the BHPVL (referred as sick industry hereinafter) and the respondent company Buildsworth Private Limited. 4. Certain disputed issues arose while carrying out the contract works between the sick industry and the respondent company and the said disputes were referred to the arbitral forum and as against the said arbitration proceedings, five number of awards were awarded in favour of the respondent Company. The respondent Company in order to realise the awarded amount put the said awards into execution under five separate execution proceedings being numbered as, Money Execution (Arbitration) Case Nos. 07/2006, 08/2006, 9/2006 and 10/2006 against the said transferor Company (BHEL) in the court of the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 5. Notices were issued and served upon the petitioner company whereafter an application was preferred by the transferee Company/judgment debtor under Section 22 of the SICA, 1985 before the court of the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. By way of the said application, the judgment debtor prayed for dismissal of the execution proceedings referred herein above, but vide the said impugned common order, the learned court below dismissed the said petition, which is put to challenge in the present revision application. By way of the said application, the judgment debtor prayed for dismissal of the execution proceedings referred herein above, but vide the said impugned common order, the learned court below dismissed the said petition, which is put to challenge in the present revision application. In fact, the judgment debtor (the transferee company) sought for the protection under Section 22 of the SICA owing to non-completion of the implementation of the scheme formulated under the BIFR. 6. This court vide order dated 20.7.2016 in this revision application issued notice to the present respondent/decree holder and stayed the proceedings namely Money Execution (Arbitration) Case Nos. 26/2015, 27/2015, 28/2015 and 29/2015, pending in the court of the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar and Money Execution (Arbitration) Case No. 210/2015, pending in the court of the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati till the next returnable date. It is pertinent to mention here that after dismissal of the said application, vide order dated 20.11.2014, the court of the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati transferred Money Execution (Arbitration) Case Nos. 07/2006, 08/2006, 9/2006 and 10/2006 to the court of the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar for its execution, as the transferee company BHEL had its work going on at Salakati within the territorial jurisdiction of the said court of the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar. However, one of the execution cases remained in the court of the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati which was renumbered as Money Execution (Arbitration) Case No. 210/2015 from its 7. It is also not out of place to mention here that the present respondent also preferred CRP No. 518/2015 being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar after the said transfer, as notices were issued in the said Money Execution (Arbitration) Cases pending therein to the judgment debtor (petitioner) inasmuch as no notices were required to be sent to the judgment debtor (petitioner) as the execution proceedings were started within a period of two years as prescribed under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC. The said petition was disposed of on 4.3.2016 by this court with a direction to the learned Executing courts to complete the execution proceeding as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from 4.3.2016. The said petition was disposed of on 4.3.2016 by this court with a direction to the learned Executing courts to complete the execution proceeding as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from 4.3.2016. The judgment debtor i.e. the present petitioner also agreed to pay the principal awarded amount leaving aside the interest accrued on the award on or before 30.4.2016 before the Registry of this court which they accordingly complied with. 8. The present respondent being aggrieved by the order of stay dated 20.07.2016 had filed an application being IA © No. 1372/2016 in this revision petition for vacating the stay order which was passed on 20.7.2016 by this court. 9. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioner, submits that though the amalgamation had already taken place between the Sick Company and the present petitioner Company, however the scheme which was formulated by the BIFR, the implementation of the same has not yet been completed and as such the protection under Section 22 of SICA, 1985 is to be given to the judgment debtor Company. Referring to the various clauses under Section 18 of the said SICA, 1985, Mr. Mahanta submits that under Section 22 of the said Act, the said protection is to be extended to the Sick Industrial Company for the maximum period of 7 (seven) years from the date of amalgamation. 10. According to Mr. Mahanta, as the amalgamation took place in the month of August, 2013, the said protection shall continue to August, 2020. The said aspect of the matter though raised before the learned court below was never considered and accordingly, the learned court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction while rejecting the said application for stay under Section 22 of SICA, 1985. 11. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel opposing the submission of Mr. Mahanta submits that it is on record that the amalgamation of the Sick Company with the present judgment debtor was completed vide order dated August 29, 2013 whereby modified draft rehabilitation scheme for the said merger under Section 18 (5) of SICA, 1985 with effect from the appointed date, October 1, 2011 was approved. Mahanta submits that it is on record that the amalgamation of the Sick Company with the present judgment debtor was completed vide order dated August 29, 2013 whereby modified draft rehabilitation scheme for the said merger under Section 18 (5) of SICA, 1985 with effect from the appointed date, October 1, 2011 was approved. The merger of the sick company with the present judgment debtor was in pursuant to the approval of the Cabinet dated 21.2.2013 and after the said merger of the earlier Sick Company it was renamed as Heavy Plates & Vessels Ltd. 12. Referring to the status of the Company, Mr. Das submits that the Sick Company was amalgamated with the transferee company. Referring the definition of “effective date”, under the scheme, Mr. Das submits that the effective date means the date of filing of the certified copy of the order of BIFR to the Registrar of Companies (ROC referred to hereinafter) of the competent jurisdiction in respect of either transferor Company or the transferee Company. Referring to the scheme, Mr. Das further submits that “operative date” of the scheme would become effective from the “effective date” as defined within the scheme itself. Thus, Mr. Das submits that there is no question of further granting the protection under Section 22 of SICA, 1985 which has already been merged with the present judgment debtor/petitioner. 13. In support of his contention, Mr. Das submits that the present revision petition has been filed by none other than the transferee Company thereby indicating that it had given effect to the scheme and its terms and conditions. It would not be out of place to mention here that in a reply obtained through the Right to Information Act against the question whether the merger of BHPVL with BHEL is completed and the appointed date and effective date of such scheme, the concerned authority replied vide its letter dated 5.11.2016 that BHPVL merged with BHEL on Ist October, 2011, the appointed date and 30th August, 2013 as the effective date respectively, vide order dated 18.10.2013 pursuant to the cabinet accord dated 21.2.2013. 14. Consequent upon the said merger, the BHPVL has become the 17th manufacturing unit of BHEL under the name and style, Heavy Plates and Vessels Plant. It is further submitted by Mr. 14. Consequent upon the said merger, the BHPVL has become the 17th manufacturing unit of BHEL under the name and style, Heavy Plates and Vessels Plant. It is further submitted by Mr. Das that in another query, the judgment debtor replied that the Bharat Heavy Plates & Vessels Ltd. was amalgamated under the ROC, Hyderabad. 15. In another query to the judgment debtor, it was informed to the respondent that there is no pending proceeding in BIFR in the form of reply considering that no such document in support of any proceeding is available on record as per the judgment debtor Company. Submitting as aforesaid, Mr. Das finally submits that there is no merit in this petition and the judgment debtor is not at all entitled to any protection under Section 22 of SICA, 1985. 16. Considered the submissions of both the learned senior counsels who strenuously took this court through the various provisions of law including the information collected and submitted before this court, supported by affidavit, wherefrom it clearly shows that amalgamation of the sick industry is completed with the present judgment debtor BHEL and the present judgment debtor has taken up all the liability of the earlier sick industry and they are liable to pay the dues to the respondent. 17. The submission of Mr. Mahanta that financial projections made in the scheme in Case No. 503/2004 formulated by the BIFR itself indicates that the process of implementation is projected till financial year 2018-2019 through the State Bank of India (SBI) as the monitoring agency in respect of the implementation of the said scheme along with the BIFR cannot be accepted. As per this court’s understanding, the scheme of the BIFR included project report showing the manner of funding and its return is projected for the acceptance by the SBI as the funding source for operation of the amalgamated Company owing to which the SBI has been shown as the monitoring agency in the scheme. 18. Further, submission of Mr. Mahanta with regard to the general terms and conditions of the scheme the same cannot be held to be a protection to the judgment debtor in disbursing the financial liability to the unsecured creditor/contractors as per Section 22 of SICA, 1985. Under the said circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed without interfering the order passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. 19. Mr. Under the said circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed without interfering the order passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. 19. Mr. Das submits that a direction be given to the concerned Executing Court both at Kokrajhar and at Guwahati to make endeavour to dispose of the execution proceedings within a period of 4 (four) months from today. Needless to say that the executing courts are duty bound to realise the dues entitled under the awards to the respondent/decree holder. The petitioner/judgment debtor had already paid the principal amount to the respondent/decree holder, so a direction as sought for by the learned counsel of the respondent is issued to the executing courts to complete the execution proceedings within a period of 4 (four) months from the receipt of the copy of this order. 20. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 21. This petition is accordingly disposed of.