N.K. Sodhi, J. - (1.) M/s Petro Chemicals Limited for short the company) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. By order dated 27.6.1997 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the Board) the company was declared a sick industrial company within the meaning of Sec. 3(i)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short the Act). One Shri V.K.. Saxena was appointed its special director to safeguard the financial and other interests of the company. The Board formed an opinion that the company could not revive on its own and that it was necessary in public interest to revive/rehabilitate it and accordingly the Industrial Finance Corporation of India (1FCI) was appointed as the Operating agency under Sec. 17(3) of the Act to examine the viability and submit its report for the revival of the company. The company and its promoters were directed to submit a rehabilitation proposal within six weeks from the cut off date which was fixed as 31.12.1997. The period was subsequently extended by the Board. The Board also permitted the promoters to induct a co -promoter who could bring in adequate funds for revival of the company. The Operating Agency was also directed to examine the proposal for one time settlement of the dues of the secured creditors and submit a report after holding a joint meeting with all concerned. The company and its promoters failed to submit any feasible rehabilitation proposal based on one time settlement even though they were given sufficient time for this purpose. Since no viable/feasible proposal for the rehabilitation of the company was coming forth from the promoters, the Board directed the Operating Agency to advertise in the press for locating alternative promoters to take over the management of the company who could bring in the requisite funds for its rehabilitation. The existing promoters were also given option to submit their proposal in response to the advertisement. It appears that four parties made some queries and necessary information was supplied to them by the Operating Agency but none of them came forward with a concrete rehabilitation proposal. The Board then formed a prima -facie opinion that winding up of the company was the only solution in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the company and its promoters on 27.10.1999. In response to this notice, the company and its promoters sought time to submit a rehabilitation package but they again failed to do so. The Board found that the company owed more than Rs. 100 crores to the Banks and other financial institutions and that in view of this huge debt liability the company had to be wound up. Consequently, the Board confirmed its prima -facie opinion that the company was not likely to make its networth exceed its accumulated losses within a reasonable and that the company as a result thereof was not likely to become viable in future and hence it was just, equitable and in public interest that it should be wound up. It forwarded its opinion to this court by order dated 4.1.2000. feeling ag - grieved by this order, the company filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which by its order dated 27.7.2000 dismissed the same. It is against these order that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) We have heard counsel for the parties and with their help have gone through the impugned orders. The main thrust of the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the company be given one more opportunity to submit its proposal for rehabilitation and that the matter be remitted back to the Board for its consideration. Learned senior counsel also challenged that part of the order passed by the Board by which it had directed the company to deposit Rs. One crore which amount was subsequently brought down to Rs. Fifty lacs in an interest bearing no -lien account within a reasonable time before the company could be granted any further time for submitting is proposals for rehabilitation. It was also contended that techno economic and commercial viability of the company had not been determined by the Board and this was an error committed by it which would vitiate the impugned orders. We find no merit in any of these contentions. It is clear from the order passed by the Board that several opportunities were given to the petitioner -company to submit a viable scheme for its rehabilitation but it failed to do so and with a views to test the bona fides of the promoters a suggestion was made by the Board that the company should deposit Rs. Fifty lacs in an interest bearing no -lien account within a reasonable time but the company failed to deposit even this meager amount. We are clearly of the view that no fault can be found with such a direction/suggestion as it was only meant to test the bona fides of the promoters who were time and again seeking extension for submitting a revival scheme which they never did, Keeping in view the total debt liability of the company which runs into more than 100 crores, the direction to the promoters to deposit only Rs. Fifty lacs was more than reasonable but when this small amount even could not be deposited, what hope is left for the revival of the company. The learned senior counsel submitted before us also that the company be given one more opportunity to submit a revival scheme but we are not inclined to do so because even before us the company has not placed any concrete proposal for its rehabilitation and may be that it is trying to prolong the matter only with a view to keep its creditors at bay. This aspect of the matter has been thoroughly examined by the Board and again by the Appellate Authority and we are satisfied that the provisions of the Act were strictly complied with. There is no reason for this court to interfere in the exercise of its extra -ordinary jurisdiction. In view to the huge debt liability of the company, the Board consisting of the experts in the field have found that the company is not likely to make its net worth exceed its accumulated losses within a reasonable time while meeting all its financial obligations. In this view of the matter , the company is not likely to become viable in future and the Board was justified in holding that it was just, equitable and in public interest that it should be wound up. There, is no error of the law or fact either in the order of the Board or in the one passed y the Appellate Authority. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed with nor order as to costs.;