Winding up of sick company accepted after failed revival efforts, prolonged closure, and no objection from creditors.

The Court accepted the BIFR's concluded opinion that winding up was justified because the company had already been declared sick, no viable revival proposal had emerged, the promoters were absent from rehabilitation efforts, and the unit had remained closed for years. The lack of objection from secured creditors and other concerned authorities also supported liquidation. On that basis, winding up was ordered and the Official Liquidator was appointed to take charge of the assets and proceed according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should accept the BIFR opinion and order winding up of the company.

Analysis: The company was already declared sick, no viable revival proposal had emerged, the promoters had gone abroad and were not participating in rehabilitation, the unit had remained closed for years, and the secured creditors and other concerned authorities had no objection to winding up. In these circumstances, the Court accepted the BIFR's concluded opinion that winding up was just, equitable and in the public interest.

Conclusion: The company was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator was appointed to liquidate its assets and proceed in accordance with law.

---