1998 (5) TMI 399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing appeal is 45 days from the date on which a copy of the order sought to be impugned is issued. The conclusions reached by AIFR may be re-produced as under:- "14. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and 12 relied on M/s. S.R.F. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Garware Plastics and Polyesters Ltd. (AIR 1995 SC 22-28) and contended that the proceedings before the Board have to be expeditiously disposed of and it cannot be allowed to be used as dilatory tactics for a potential sick company. The counsel submitted that it is a case where scheme has been sanctioned and thereafter much progress has occurred and large expenditure has been incurred by the new promoter and entertainment of the belated appeal would lead to drastic consequences. 15. Section 114 of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e claim of the co-promoter is that 50% of one time settlement amount payable to the bank and financial institutions under the scheme had also been paid and the balance 50% was to be paid as per the stipulation of the sanctioned scheme. It is also claimed that the workers have been paid over Rs. 7 crores as per the agreed Voluntary Retirement scheme and the strength of the work force had been reduced to the level provided for by scheme. 4. The Appeal against the order of BIFR dated 18th March, 1997 was filed by the petitioner on 25th July, 1997. According to the petitioners, the certified copy of the BIFR order dated 18th March, 1997 was made available to them on 23rd June, 1997 and thus the Appeal was filed within limitation. 5. It is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of petitioners dated 26th March, 1997 for supply of copy of the said order. The letter of the Registrar dated 5th September, 1997 placed on record alongwith the reply of the respondents before us shows that the petitioners were allowed to obtain copy of the order of BIFR on 21st April, 1997. This fact is disputed by the petitioners. However, it is neither expedient nor is it a fit case in which these disputed questions deserve to be gone into in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it difficult to accept the contention that the entire staff of the BIFR was mixed up with the opposite party in not supplying the certified copy of the order of BIFR. If that was so, the petitioners could take up ....