https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106657 Winding up under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act was supported by the BIFR's opinion where the company had already been declared sick, no viable revival scheme with tied-up finance was submitted despite adequate opportunity, and the operating agency reported no realistic prospect of rehabilitation. The company's representatives also acknowledged long closure of the factory, failed settlement efforts, and rising accumulated losses. On those facts, the opinion that winding up was just and equitable in public interest was found well founded, and the company was directed to be wound up with the official liquidator appointed to take charge of its assets and proceed according to law. en-us Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:39:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106657 Winding up under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act was supported by the BIFR's opinion where the company had already been declared sick, no viable revival scheme with tied-up finance was submitted despite adequate opportunity, and the operating agency reported no realistic prospect of rehabilitation. The company's representatives also acknowledged long closure of the factory, failed settlement efforts, and rising accumulated losses. On those facts, the opinion that winding up was just and equitable in public interest was found well founded, and the company was directed to be wound up with the official liquidator appointed to take charge of its assets and proceed according to law. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106657