https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105837 Interference under Article 226 was held unwarranted where specialised sick-industry authorities found, on the material before them, that the company was commercially unviable, heavily indebted, and had failed for years to produce any feasible rehabilitation or financing plan. The Court accepted that the absence of workable revival measures, coupled with obsolete plant and machinery and inability to service debts, supported the conclusion that rehabilitation was not feasible and that winding up was just and equitable in public interest. The challenge to the BIFR and AAIFR winding-up orders was rejected and the petition was dismissed. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:36:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105837 Interference under Article 226 was held unwarranted where specialised sick-industry authorities found, on the material before them, that the company was commercially unviable, heavily indebted, and had failed for years to produce any feasible rehabilitation or financing plan. The Court accepted that the absence of workable revival measures, coupled with obsolete plant and machinery and inability to service debts, supported the conclusion that rehabilitation was not feasible and that winding up was just and equitable in public interest. The challenge to the BIFR and AAIFR winding-up orders was rejected and the petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105837