9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by BIFR and AAIFR, rejection of second reference application, legality of findings based on balance-sheet, jurisdictional error in impugned orders. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, a company, filed a reference to the BIFR seeking a declaration as a sick industrial company based on its financial accounts for the year ending on 31-3-1998. The BIFR declared the petitioner as a sick industrial company, but this decision was overturned by the AAIFR in an appeal filed by a financial institution. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second reference based on the accounts for the year ending on 31-3-1999, which was rejected by the BIFR and AAIFR. The petitioner contended that the rejection was faulty as it did not independently assess the second reference application. The court emphasized that each reference must stand on its own merits, and rejection of one year's reference does not preclude filing for the next year. The court clarified that the fate of the second reference does not affect the pending first reference. The court found no substance in the petitioner's arguments that the second reference should be heard with the first one. The court examined the legality of the findings based on the balance-sheet for the year ending on 31-3-1999 and concluded that the authorities correctly evaluated the petitioner's application. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decisions of the BIFR and AAIFR. The court highlighted that it cannot re-examine factual scenarios beyond the first appellate stage and can only correct jurisdictional errors under Article 227. The court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it summarily.
|
