https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105374 An order under section 17(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 requires a rehabilitation scheme only where a workable revival exercise is actually feasible. The absence of a formal review application did not bar the Board from considering the material before it and deciding that no viable scheme could be framed. On the facts, repeated opportunities had yielded no credible revival proposal, the promoters had not seriously participated, and the statutory authorities had concurrently found the company heavily indebted and incapable of revival. Those factual findings were not open to writ interference under Articles 226 and 227 absent perversity, jurisdictional error, or breach of natural justice. en-us Thu, 08 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:48:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105374 An order under section 17(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 requires a rehabilitation scheme only where a workable revival exercise is actually feasible. The absence of a formal review application did not bar the Board from considering the material before it and deciding that no viable scheme could be framed. On the facts, repeated opportunities had yielded no credible revival proposal, the promoters had not seriously participated, and the statutory authorities had concurrently found the company heavily indebted and incapable of revival. Those factual findings were not open to writ interference under Articles 226 and 227 absent perversity, jurisdictional error, or breach of natural justice. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 08 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105374