Winding-up on BIFR reference requires independent court scrutiny; subsequent events may be considered only after admission and advertisement.

In a winding-up proceeding initiated on a BIFR reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the High Court is not bound by the BIFR opinion as conclusive and must independently assess whether winding up is justified under the Companies Act, 1956. The Court may examine the correctness of the BIFR material at the admission stage, but subsequent events can be considered only after the petition is admitted and advertised in accordance with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, so that creditors, contributories and other interested persons may file objections or support. The petition was therefore directed to be admitted and advertised before any final winding-up order.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a winding-up proceeding arising from a BIFR opinion under section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Company Court is confined to the BIFR's recommendation or may consider subsequent events brought on record before ordering winding up; and whether the petition must proceed in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, including admission and advertisement.

Analysis: Section 20(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 requires the High Court to proceed with winding up on the basis of the BIFR's opinion, but that opinion does not displace the Court's own judicial function under sections 433 and 443 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court must independently apply its mind to the material before it and decide whether winding up is warranted. The procedural scheme of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 shows that, before a winding-up petition is finally acted upon, creditors, contributories and other interested persons are to be given notice and an opportunity to support or oppose the petition. Since the matter is still at the stage of admission, the Court may examine the contents and correctness of the BIFR opinion, but substantive subsequent events can be considered only after admission and advertisement, when affidavits and evidence are received from all concerned.

Conclusion: The BIFR's opinion was not binding or conclusive, the Company Court retained discretion to consider the matter independently, and subsequent events could be examined after admission and advertisement of the petition.

Final Conclusion: The winding-up petition was directed to be admitted and advertised, so that all interested parties could place subsequent developments before the Court before any final order on winding up.

Ratio Decidendi: In a winding-up proceeding based on a BIFR reference, the High Court must independently assess whether winding up is justified and cannot treat the BIFR opinion as conclusive; subsequent events may be considered only after the petition is admitted and advertised in accordance with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.

---