Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.25 seconds)Kothari (Madras) Ltd. (Kothari ... vs Appellate Authority Under T.N. Shops & ... on 22 June, 1998
In support of the submission, the learned counsel for the respondent cited M/s Bir Industrial Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for financial Reconstruction & others in WP (C)3010/2002 dated 23.10.2003 where it was observed that the principal object of SICA is to rehabilitate genuinely sick companies which become sick because of factors beyond their control and not for companies who have doctored or manipulated their account and claim sickness with ulterior motives or who have doctored sickness. It was also contended by Ms. Dhir that M/s Radbin Consultants may not have analysed various factors of the company as at some places material from Directors' Reports have been quoted. Therefore no useful purpose would be served by directing the BIFR to consider afresh M/s Radbin Consultants Report. She tried to persuade us that there is a difference between the sickness and viability. To put it more simply, she want us to lay down that once a company has been declared sick, the question of viability of its revival or rehabilitation should not be gone into. If the company is not sick then there is no question of going into viability of its reliability because the company is not sick. On similar lines Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Punjab National Bank has also contended. He also contended that in the given circumstances this court would be reluctant to interfere and set aside the order of AAIFR which is well reasoned and while exercising judicial review, the High court will not take up the question which has been indisputably determined by AAIFR. According to Mr. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Punjab National Bank, this court would not consider the question of rehabilitation or sickness which has been determined by the Appellate Authority i.e. AAIFR.
1