https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110035 A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was binding, but it could not be used selectively to defeat pending winding up petitions while ignoring the company's own unpaid obligations under the same scheme. The scheme required payment to different classes of creditors and reflected an earlier High Court direction on funds to be reserved for one creditor. The Court stated that a party seeking relief must first demonstrate readiness to perform its own obligations, and the existence of objections before BIFR did not justify dismissal of the petitions in the company's favour. The request for dismissal was rejected. en-us Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:56:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110035 A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was binding, but it could not be used selectively to defeat pending winding up petitions while ignoring the company's own unpaid obligations under the same scheme. The scheme required payment to different classes of creditors and reflected an earlier High Court direction on funds to be reserved for one creditor. The Court stated that a party seeking relief must first demonstrate readiness to perform its own obligations, and the existence of objections before BIFR did not justify dismissal of the petitions in the company's favour. The request for dismissal was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110035