BIFR-bound pricing disputes must be worked out within the rehabilitation framework, leaving no scope for fresh appellate relief.

The ancillary supply pricing dispute was treated as governed by the BIFR proceedings and the undertaking binding the parties. Since part payment had already been made and the remaining liability was to be worked out within that framework, no fresh adjudication on the merits of revised prices or payment terms was undertaken in the appeals. The substantive rights and liabilities were left to be determined under the BIFR process, and no further appellate relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dispute regarding payment and revised prices for ancillary supply units stood governed by the BIFR proceedings and the directions binding the parties, and whether any further relief survived in the appeals.

Analysis: The dispute arose from an ancillary development arrangement under which the supplier units sought enforcement of the price and liability terms. The matter had already been referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, which had gone into the question, and the parties were treated as bound by its decision and the undertaking before it. It was also noted that part payment had already been made and that the remaining liability was to be worked out in accordance with the BIFR proceedings.

Conclusion: No fresh adjudication on the merits of the pricing dispute was undertaken in the appeals; the parties were left bound by the BIFR process and the appeals were disposed of.

Final Conclusion: The common order left the substantive dispute to the BIFR framework and concluded the matters without granting further appellate relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dispute is already subject to a binding BIFR determination and related undertaking, the parties must work out their rights and liabilities through that framework rather than through further appellate intervention.

---