https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109445 A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme is binding on the industrial company, promoters and creditors, and the BIFR may treat the scheme as failed where the promoters do not bring in committed funds for a substantial period and no workable revival proposal with tied-up finance is placed before it. On those facts, the BIFR was justified in declining further extension of time and in proceeding on the footing that the company should be wound up. The HC found no arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness in the order, and held that the BIFR was not required to defer its opinion merely because the petitioner wanted to wait for the appellate forum to become functional. en-us Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:39:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109445 A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme is binding on the industrial company, promoters and creditors, and the BIFR may treat the scheme as failed where the promoters do not bring in committed funds for a substantial period and no workable revival proposal with tied-up finance is placed before it. On those facts, the BIFR was justified in declining further extension of time and in proceeding on the footing that the company should be wound up. The HC found no arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness in the order, and held that the BIFR was not required to defer its opinion merely because the petitioner wanted to wait for the appellate forum to become functional. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109445