https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110502 The High Court considered whether a winding up order could be revoked or winding up proceedings stayed to enable revival of a company's manufacturing and mining operations. It examined the company's prolonged closure, earlier BIFR proceedings, a prior recommendation for winding up under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the earlier failure of a revival scheme. The Court found the new proposal was substantially the same as the rejected one, the liabilities to secured and statutory creditors were substantial, and there was no concrete, workable arrangement showing that the promoters could clear dues and restart operations. Although section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 permits a stay of winding up, the Court held that the facts did not justify such relief and rejected the application. en-us Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:56:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110502 The High Court considered whether a winding up order could be revoked or winding up proceedings stayed to enable revival of a company's manufacturing and mining operations. It examined the company's prolonged closure, earlier BIFR proceedings, a prior recommendation for winding up under section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the earlier failure of a revival scheme. The Court found the new proposal was substantially the same as the rejected one, the liabilities to secured and statutory creditors were substantial, and there was no concrete, workable arrangement showing that the promoters could clear dues and restart operations. Although section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 permits a stay of winding up, the Court held that the facts did not justify such relief and rejected the application. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110502