Writ interference in winding-up matters is unwarranted where no viable rehabilitation plan is submitted and revival is found infeasible.

Repeated failure by a sick industrial company to place a viable rehabilitation proposal, despite several opportunities and a test deposit to show bona fides, supported the view that revival was not feasible. The Board and Appellate Authority relied on expert assessment that the company could not restore its net worth within a reasonable time while meeting its financial obligations, and that statutory procedure had been followed. In these circumstances, no error of law or fact was shown and writ interference was unwarranted. The finding that winding up was just, equitable and in the public interest was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders of the Board and the Appellate Authority refusing further opportunity for rehabilitation and holding that the company should be wound up were liable to interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The company was repeatedly given opportunities to submit a viable rehabilitation proposal, including after the appointment of the Operating Agency and after advertisement for alternative promoters. No concrete revival scheme was placed before the authorities or before the Court. The direction to deposit a limited amount in an interest-bearing no-lien account was treated as a reasonable test of the promoters' bona fides, but even that amount was not deposited. On the material before it, the Board, which comprised experts in the field, concluded that the company could not make its net worth exceed accumulated losses within a reasonable time while meeting its financial obligations, and that revival was not feasible. The Appellate Authority affirmed that view. No error of law or fact, and no failure to comply with the statutory scheme, was shown.

Conclusion: The challenge was rejected and no interference was warranted; the finding that winding up was just, equitable, and in public interest was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a sick industrial company fails to place a viable rehabilitation proposal despite repeated opportunities, and the statutory authorities conclude on expert assessment that revival is not feasible, writ interference with the decision to wind up is unwarranted absent legal or factual error.

---