- (1.) The problem is not so much in the question that is posed but in the approaches of the two parties that such query has an obvious answer - the petitioner and the company each insists that there is only one view, diametrically opposed to the other, that is possible.
(2.) The fates of these nine petitions, clubbed together and heard on the solitary issue, hang on that one question which, without doubt, requires to be tested. There is a minor advantage that the petitioner in C. P. No. 197 of 2005 enjoys. Such deviation will entail a different form of order if the question is answered in favour of the petitioners.
(3.) The facts are brief and not much in dispute. The company cites a legal embargo and the petitioners claim that such defence is an excuse and a cloak for the company's inability to pay. The company made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) upon it becoming a sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (the said Act of 1985). The reference is still pending, in the sense that a scheme of rehabilitation is under implementation and the same is being monitored by the BIFR. In terms of its order sanctioning the scheme, quarterly financial positions of the company have been called for by the BIFR till such time that the dues required to be paid under the scheme are discharged.;