- (1.) The report of the Industrial Reconstruction bank of India has been received. Relying on the report, Mr. Shanti Bhushan learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contends that steps for reviving the Company should be taken.
(2.) The assets of the Company have been taken over by the appellant-corporation and it is in possession of the factory at present. Until the appeal is disposed of and unless it terminates in favour of the Respondent No. 1 it would not be possible to restore possession of the assets to the respondent No. 1. Therefore, both parties want that the appeal should be expeditiously disposed of. For that purpose the matter be called on 18th of July, 1988 for direction.
(3.) In the meantime, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 suggests that under the supervision of the appellant-Corporation repairs to the machinery may be undertaken by the respondent No. 1. Mr. Kacker on the other hand, suggests that instead of introducing the respondent into the factory, it would be possiblefor the appellant-corporation to undertake the repairs provided the particulars and details thereof are specified. The respondent no. 1 is free to provided the appropriate particulars so that the appellant Corporation can undertake the repairs: This may be done within one week.;