https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105854 The High Court confined itself to the limited scope of judicial review over BIFR and AAIFR decisions under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It found that the companies and their promoters had been given repeated opportunities to place a fully tied-up, workable rehabilitation proposal, but no acceptable scheme with a clear source of funds or binding finance was produced. A later proposal under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not justify interference, especially as secured creditors opposed it and the liabilities remained substantial. The Court therefore treated remand as an idle formality and declined to interfere with the winding-up recommendation. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:20:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105854 The High Court confined itself to the limited scope of judicial review over BIFR and AAIFR decisions under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It found that the companies and their promoters had been given repeated opportunities to place a fully tied-up, workable rehabilitation proposal, but no acceptable scheme with a clear source of funds or binding finance was produced. A later proposal under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not justify interference, especially as secured creditors opposed it and the liabilities remained substantial. The Court therefore treated remand as an idle formality and declined to interfere with the winding-up recommendation. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105854