Company revival scheme loses viability after repeated payment defaults, so winding up proceedings may continue.

A revival scheme for a company in winding up was found no longer viable because the promised settlement payments were repeatedly defaulted, the lender arrangement was breached, and no effective extension or fresh funding materialised. The court treated the prolonged non-compliance and the passage of time as making implementation commercially unrealistic, while continued stay of winding up would prejudice creditors. On that basis, the order recalling the stay was upheld and the winding up process was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proposed revival scheme for the company remained viable and capable of implementation so as to justify continuation of the stay on winding up proceedings.

Analysis: The company had been found sick, winding up had already been recommended and later ordered, and the stay granted in 2005 was meant to give a final opportunity for revival on the footing that the settlement obligations would be honoured. The record showed persistent default: the amounts due under the one-time settlement were not fully paid, the debt arrangement with the assignee lender was breached, only a small part of the agreed dues was paid, no effective extension was obtained, and the promised contributions for the scheme were not brought in. The proposed scheme was tied to an old factual and financial matrix and, by 2012, the creditors' claims and the passage of time had made implementation unrealistic. In these circumstances, the interests of creditors required that the winding up process proceed.

Conclusion: The proposed scheme was held to be no longer viable or enforceable, and the refusal to interfere with the order recalling the stay on winding up was upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the impugned order was sustained, and the winding up proceedings were permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A revival or compromise scheme for a company in winding up can be rejected where the promised financial commitments are repeatedly defaulted, the scheme has lost commercial viability with time, and continuation of the stay would prejudice the creditors.

---