https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109673 Under section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the High Court was not required to act mechanically on a winding-up recommendation and had to give substantial weight to the BIFR and AAIFR's expert view. Because no viable rehabilitation scheme had been implemented, the sanctioned scheme failed for non-compliance with financial and other conditions, and the promoters had not restored creditor confidence or shown a realistic prospect of revival, the recommendation for winding up was accepted. The company's unconditional withdrawal of its writ petition, without liberty to revive the challenge, also left its objections to the BIFR and AAIFR orders without substance, and liquidation was directed to follow. en-us Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:03:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109673 Under section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the High Court was not required to act mechanically on a winding-up recommendation and had to give substantial weight to the BIFR and AAIFR's expert view. Because no viable rehabilitation scheme had been implemented, the sanctioned scheme failed for non-compliance with financial and other conditions, and the promoters had not restored creditor confidence or shown a realistic prospect of revival, the recommendation for winding up was accepted. The company's unconditional withdrawal of its writ petition, without liberty to revive the challenge, also left its objections to the BIFR and AAIFR orders without substance, and liquidation was directed to follow. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109673