Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. In Shalini Soni v. Union of India, it was held, "it is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional and administrative, that whenever a decision making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing the irrelevant and the remote". We have dealt with each of the six reasons of the Specified Authority and Central Government for their coming to the conclusion about the financial viability of ITCI. There were no adequate funds that ITCI could obtain from any source whatsoever in order to overcome its financial difficulty (wrongly termed as temporary), ITCI having exhausted all possibilities of raising additional finance in the foreseeable future. By applying the three parameters enunciated by NCAER to ITCI immediately before its amalgamation with M & M, ITCI had to be classified as sick - all three parameters showing a negative figure, and since, NCAER defined sickness in terms of financial viability, it was clear that ITCI was not, on October 31, 1977, financially viable. The market value of the assets of ITCI could not be considered as a relevant material to the determination of the question of the financial non-viability of ITCI within the meaning of s. 72A of the Act. The share exchange ratio in the scheme of amalgamation is a neutral factor and could not form any relevant material for basing the impugned recommendations by the Specified Authority or the impugned orders of the Central Govt. Viewed from the point of liquidity, the statutory authorities could not draw any inference that ITCI was financially viable merely on the basis of the statement made by ITCI in the application for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation that its assets are more than sufficient to meet its liabilities. It had been established on the record that the immediate requirement of ITCI was of the order of 5 or 6 crores and this could not have been provided by M & M because of the financial constraints on M & M under s. 370 of the Companies Act, 1956, and because of the excess borrowing of M & M from banks in excess of the Tandon Committee norms. There was no material before the statutory authorities that ITCI would have continued to get financial assistance from M & M to to nurse ITCI back to health. There is no positive material either in the impugned orders or in the counter affidavit from which a conclusion in law could be drawn that ITCI was financially viable on October 31, 1977.