https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109426 An appellant who merely supported a rehabilitation proposal lacked locus standi to challenge later directions once that proposal was found unviable and rejected. Under section 25(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Appellate Authority's power to confirm, modify, set aside or remit the appealed order was held wide enough to issue consequential directions for sale of the sick unit's assets and for application of the proceeds towards workers' dues, statutory liabilities, creditor claims and revival measures. Formulating points for decision did not breach natural justice because the parties were heard on the rehabilitation issue and no prejudice was shown. The appellate directions were sustained and the appeal failed. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:44:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109426 An appellant who merely supported a rehabilitation proposal lacked locus standi to challenge later directions once that proposal was found unviable and rejected. Under section 25(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Appellate Authority's power to confirm, modify, set aside or remit the appealed order was held wide enough to issue consequential directions for sale of the sick unit's assets and for application of the proceeds towards workers' dues, statutory liabilities, creditor claims and revival measures. Formulating points for decision did not breach natural justice because the parties were heard on the rehabilitation issue and no prejudice was shown. The appellate directions were sustained and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109426