Article 226 review of sick-company winding up rejected where no feasible rehabilitation plan and continued commercial unviability were shown.

Interference under Article 226 was held unwarranted where specialised sick-industry authorities found, on the material before them, that the company was commercially unviable, heavily indebted, and had failed for years to produce any feasible rehabilitation or financing plan. The Court accepted that the absence of workable revival measures, coupled with obsolete plant and machinery and inability to service debts, supported the conclusion that rehabilitation was not feasible and that winding up was just and equitable in public interest. The challenge to the BIFR and AAIFR winding-up orders was rejected and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 with the orders of the BIFR and AAIFR directing winding up of the sick company under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The company had remained unviable for many years, with no concrete rehabilitation proposal, no workable financing arrangement, and no effective progress despite repeated opportunities before the specialised statutory authorities. The materials showed heavy indebtedness, obsolete plant and machinery, inability to service debts, and failure of the promoters to produce a feasible revival plan. In these circumstances, the findings of the BIFR and AAIFR that rehabilitation was not feasible and that winding up was just and equitable in public interest did not disclose any ground for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the winding-up orders was rejected and the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory findings of unviability and failure of revival were upheld, and the winding-up direction was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference under Article 226 is unwarranted where specialised sick-industry authorities, on the basis of the material before them, find that a company is commercially unviable, no feasible rehabilitation scheme exists, and winding up is justified in public interest.

---