Independent sickness reference and limited Article 227 review prevent interference with concurrent factual findings under the 1985 Act.

A second reference for declaration of sickness under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 must be examined independently on the basis of the relevant year's balance-sheet, and rejection of an earlier reference does not bar a fresh one for a later year. Supervisory interference under Article 227 is limited to jurisdictional error or patent legal infirmity; concurrent findings based on the accounts and financial material will not be reappraised in writ jurisdiction. Where the authorities found defects in the accounts and held that the petitioner had approached with unclean hands, no basis existed to disturb the BIFR and AAIFR decisions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a second reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 had to be considered independently on the basis of the later balance-sheet and was unaffected by the pendency or outcome of an earlier reference. (ii) Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with concurrent findings of the BIFR and AAIFR rejecting the claim for sick industrial company status.

Issue (i): The governing principle is that each reference for declaration of sickness must stand on its own facts and on the balance-sheet for the relevant financial year. Rejection of an earlier reference does not bar a fresh reference for a subsequent year, and the later application has to be examined independently on its own merits.

Conclusion: The second reference was required to be treated as a separate and independent proceeding, and the pendency of the earlier writ did not entitle the petitioner to any composite consideration.

Issue (ii): Interference under Article 227 is confined to jurisdictional error or other patent legal infirmity. Concurrent findings based on the accounts for the relevant year and on appreciation of financial material do not warrant reappraisal in writ jurisdiction, especially where the authorities have found infirmities in the accounts and concluded that the petitioner approached the forum with unclean hands.

Conclusion: No ground for supervisory interference was made out against the orders of the BIFR and the AAIFR.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the concurrent rejection of the second reference was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference for sickness under the 1985 Act must be decided independently on the basis of the relevant year's balance-sheet, and supervisory writ jurisdiction will not be exercised to disturb concurrent factual findings absent a jurisdictional error.

---