SVLDR Scheme eligibility clarified where redemption fine and disqualification grounds could not justify rejection of related applications.

Rejection of SVLDR Scheme applications was held unsustainable where the stated ground of non-payment of redemption fine was found untenable and the relevant disqualification under Section 125(1)(e) did not apply on the accepted facts. The firm's applications were quashed and directed to be processed under the Scheme. Because the partners' declarations stood on the same footing as the firm's applications, the rejection of their applications also could not survive once the firm-level rejection fell. The respondents were directed to accept and process the partners' applications and proceed in accordance with law, including issuance of the prescribed final certificate on compliance with payment directions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the firm's SVLDR Scheme applications on the ground of non-payment of redemption fine was sustainable; (ii) Whether rejection of the nine SVLDR Scheme applications on the basis of Section 125(1)(e) of the Scheme was valid where the facts were identical to an earlier matter; (iii) Whether the partners' applications could be rejected merely because the firm's applications had been rejected.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the firm's SVLDR Scheme applications on the ground of non-payment of redemption fine was sustainable.

Analysis: The rejection was examined in the light of the earlier decision referred to by the parties. The ground that the firm had not paid the redemption fine was found to be untenable for the purpose of refusing the benefit of the Scheme.

Conclusion: The rejection of the firm's two applications was illegal and was quashed and set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the nine SVLDR Scheme applications on the basis of Section 125(1)(e) of the Scheme was valid where the facts were identical to an earlier matter.

Analysis: The nine applications were rejected on the footing that no enquiry or investigation was pending on the relevant date and that the matter was outside the scope of the stated disqualification. Since the parties accepted that the facts were identical to those in the earlier petition, the same reasoning was applied and the disqualification was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The rejection of the nine applications was quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to process them under the Scheme.

Issue (iii): Whether the partners' applications could be rejected merely because the firm's applications had been rejected.

Analysis: The partners' declarations stood on the same footing as the firm's applications. Once the rejection of the firm's applications was held unsustainable, the foundation for rejecting the partners' applications also disappeared.

Conclusion: The rejection of the four partners' applications could not survive and the respondents were directed to accept and process those applications.

Final Conclusion: The Scheme applications of the firm and its partners were directed to be processed in accordance with law, with consequential issuance of the prescribed final certificate upon compliance with the payment directions.

---