Company revival scheme rejected where long-delayed plan lacked creditor support and relied on asset sales rather than fresh resources.

A proposed revival scheme for a company was found inconsistent with the statutory framework and not a credible rehabilitation package on the facts. The court noted that the scheme had remained unimplemented for years, lacked support from secured creditors and workmen, and depended largely on sale of company assets without fresh resources. Accepting the BIFR view, as confirmed on appeal, the court treated winding up as the appropriate course in the public interest and declined to sanction revival.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proposed revival scheme for the company should be sanctioned and the winding-up proceedings should be declined, or whether the company should be wound up on the basis of the BIFR and AAIFR opinions.

Analysis: The scheme was found to be inconsistent with the statutory framework and, on facts, not credible as a viable rehabilitation package. The Court noted that the proposal had remained unimplemented for years, had not secured the support of secured creditors or workmen, and appeared to depend substantially on sale of company assets without fresh resources. The Court also accepted the view that no workable revival avenue remained and that the opinion of the BIFR, as confirmed in appeal, properly supported winding up in the public interest.

Conclusion: The proposed revival scheme was rejected and the company was ordered to be wound up.

---