Winding-up procedure requires independent judicial scrutiny; BIFR/AAIFR opinion is relevant but not conclusive for winding up.

An opinion from BIFR/AAIFR under the sick industrial companies framework does not by itself authorise immediate winding up. The High Court must still follow the statutory winding-up stages, including admission, advertisement, notice to interested parties, and hearing, before the petition becomes representative in character. The opinion may be relevant and carry weight, but it is not conclusive and does not displace the court's independent duty to decide whether winding up is justified on the facts and in law. A winding-up order passed without that procedure and independent assessment is unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a company could be ordered to be wound up merely on receipt of the BIFR/AAIFR opinion without following the winding-up procedure under the Companies Act and the Companies (Court) Rules, including admission and advertisement. (ii) Whether the opinion of the BIFR/AAIFR was conclusive or only formed the basis for the High Court to apply its independent mind on the question of winding up.

Issue (i): Whether a company could be ordered to be wound up merely on receipt of the BIFR/AAIFR opinion without following the winding-up procedure under the Companies Act and the Companies (Court) Rules, including admission and advertisement.

Analysis: The scheme of winding up under the Companies Act contemplates distinct stages: presentation of the petition, admission, direction for advertisement, and then hearing. The hearing follows advertisement, and the proceeding becomes representative in character only after the publication of notice so that creditors, contributories, and other interested persons may appear. The court is not bound to make a winding-up order even where grounds are made out, because section 443(1) confers discretion to dismiss, adjourn, make interim orders, or order winding up. Ordering winding up straightaway on the basis of the BIFR/AAIFR opinion without proceeding through these stages bypassed the procedure required by rule 96 and denied the petition its representative character.

Conclusion: The company could not be finally wound up without following the statutory winding-up process and the order passed straightaway was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the opinion of the BIFR/AAIFR was conclusive or only formed the basis for the High Court to apply its independent mind on the question of winding up.

Analysis: The opinion forwarded by the BIFR/AAIFR under section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is not an abdication of the High Court's function. The High Court must take that opinion into account, but it must still determine whether winding up is justified on the facts and in law. The statutory opinion may carry weight because it is rendered by an expert body, but it is not binding in the sense of automatically requiring a winding-up order. The learned judge treated the opinion as conclusive and did not undertake the required independent assessment whether it was just and equitable to wind up the company.

Conclusion: The BIFR/AAIFR opinion was only a basis for further proceedings and not a conclusive direction to wind up the company.

Final Conclusion: The winding-up order was set aside, and the company petition was to be treated only as having reached the stage of a prima facie view for admission, with the matter remitted for advertisement, affidavits, and further consideration according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: An opinion of the BIFR/AAIFR under section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not dispense with the High Court's duty to follow the statutory winding-up procedure and to exercise its own discretion on whether winding up is warranted after admission, advertisement, and hearing.

---