Winding up for sick industrial company upheld where revival failed and rehabilitation had no realistic prospect.

Winding up under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act was supported by the BIFR's opinion where the company had already been declared sick, no viable revival scheme with tied-up finance was submitted despite adequate opportunity, and the operating agency reported no realistic prospect of rehabilitation. The company's representatives also acknowledged long closure of the factory, failed settlement efforts, and rising accumulated losses. On those facts, the opinion that winding up was just and equitable in public interest was found well founded, and the company was directed to be wound up with the official liquidator appointed to take charge of its assets and proceed according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company should be ordered to be wound up on the basis of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction's opinion under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The company had already been declared sick, no viable revival scheme with tied-up means of finance had been submitted despite adequate opportunity, and the operating agency reported no realistic prospect of rehabilitation. The company's own representatives acknowledged that the factory had remained closed for years, settlement efforts had failed, and accumulated losses were increasing. In these circumstances, the Court found the BIFR's opinion that winding up was just and equitable in public interest to be well founded and confirmed it.

Conclusion: The company was directed to be wound up and the official liquidator was appointed to take charge of the company's assets and proceed according to law.

---