Sanctioned rehabilitation scheme ambiguity may require BIFR clarification before delayed payment surcharge is finally determined.

A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme is binding on the sick industrial company and concerned authorities, and ambiguity in its implementation may be addressed by seeking clarification from the BIFR. The text explains that where clause 5.04 refers to writing off "interest and damages" in electricity dues, the inclusion of delayed payment surcharge must be tested against the scheme, the statutory rehabilitation framework, and the materials placed on record. If relevant correspondence or comparable treatment in another case is not fully examined, the proper course is remand for clarification and fresh consideration rather than final determination on an incomplete record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delayed payment surcharge fell within the expression "interest and damages" in the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme. (ii) Whether the matter required remand for clarification by the BIFR and reconsideration of the relevant materials, including the treatment accorded in another unit's case.

Issue (i): Whether delayed payment surcharge fell within the expression "interest and damages" in the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme.

Analysis: The sanctioned scheme was binding on the sick industrial company and all concerned authorities. The Court noted that clause 5.04 referred to writing off "interest and damages" in respect of electricity dues, while the controversy was whether delayed payment surcharge was covered by that expression. Since the High Court had not adequately examined the distinction drawn from the earlier decision relied on before it, and since the scheme itself had to be understood in the light of the BIFR's sanction and the statutory scheme governing rehabilitation, the issue could not be finally resolved on the existing record.

Conclusion: The question whether delayed payment surcharge was included in the sanctioned scheme was left for clarification and further consideration, and no final determination on merits was recorded.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand for clarification by the BIFR and reconsideration of the relevant materials, including the treatment accorded in another unit's case.

Analysis: The Court observed that if any difficulty arose in giving effect to the sanctioned scheme, the BIFR had power to remove the difficulty. It also noted that the High Court had not examined the relevance of the correspondence and materials placed before it, including the letter referring to the treatment in the Lord Krishna Mills matter. In these circumstances, the proper course was to obtain clarification from the BIFR and then reconsider the case in the High Court.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted for clarification and fresh consideration of the relevant documents and treatment in the comparable case.

Final Conclusion: The judgment did not finally decide the surcharge issue on merits, but required statutory clarification and reconsideration before the High Court could determine the controversy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme gives rise to ambiguity in implementation, the BIFR may be approached for clarification under the Act, and the court should not finally resolve the controversy without such clarification when the record is incomplete.

---