9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 603 - HC - Indian LawsScheme for rehabilitating of sick company - revival of Adilabad Unit - Held that - State of Telangana intends to represent to the Union of India seeking revival of the Cement Corporation of India Limited, Adilabad District, considering the number of representations received from the local public as well as employees of the Cement Corporation of India Limited, Adilabad District. Inasmuch as the learned Special Government Pleader requests this Court to deal with this aspect as well, it may be observed that the above-quoted paragraph refers to revival of the Cement Corporation of India Limited, Adilabad District. The Cement Corporation of India Limited having a number of units is different from the Cement Corporation of India Limited, Adilabad District as there is no Company existing like Cement Corporation of India Limited, Adilabad District in strict legal sense. Probably, what the Principal Secretary means is Adilabad unit of Cement Corporation of India Limited. Inasmuch as the issue before the BIFR as well as the Appellate Authority was the revival of the Cement Corporation of India Limited the Sick Industrial Company with multiple units, the question of revival of Adilabad Unit on stand alone basis does not arises. However, it may not be construed that if the State of Telangana or any other party interested to rehabilitate or revive the Adilabad Unit, the same would have to be strictly done in accordance with the scheme as approved by the BIFR which aspect has already been dealt with in the preceding paragraphs. This Court finds no merits in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed making it clear that the respondent-authorities shall implement the scheme formulated with respect to the workers in letter and sprit expeditiously.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and constitutionality of omitting Adilabad unit from the revival scheme. 2. Consideration of Andhra Pradesh Government's support for the revival of Adilabad unit. 3. Inclusion of Bokajan unit in the revival scheme despite its non-viability. 4. Non-consideration of expert reports favoring the revival of Adilabad unit. 5. Failure of BIFR to implement its findings regarding the viability of Adilabad unit. 6. Alleged arbitrary and irrational decision-making by the respondents. 7. The role of extraneous considerations in the decision-making process. 8. The impact of previous court decisions on the current writ petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Constitutionality of Omitting Adilabad Unit: The petitioner argued that the omission of the Adilabad unit from the revival scheme was illegal, unconstitutional, and discriminatory, violating Article 14. The court noted that the BIFR's decision to exclude Adilabad was based on a comprehensive assessment of the company's viability as a whole, not just individual units. The decision aimed to revive the company by focusing on units deemed viable, and thus, the exclusion of Adilabad was not found to be arbitrary or discriminatory. 2. Consideration of Andhra Pradesh Government's Support: The petitioner contended that the respondents did not consider the support and concessions offered by the Andhra Pradesh Government for the revival of the Adilabad unit. The court observed that while such support is relevant, it cannot solely determine the revival of a sick unit. The BIFR's mandate is to assess the viability of the company as a whole, and the concessions for one unit do not override the overall financial and operational considerations. 3. Inclusion of Bokajan Unit Despite Non-Viability: The petitioner highlighted that the Bokajan unit, declared non-viable by CCI itself, was included in the revival scheme. The court noted that the BIFR had considered various factors, including expert reports and strategic decisions, in its approval of the scheme. The inclusion of Bokajan was based on a broader assessment of the company's revival prospects and not solely on the unit's individual viability. 4. Non-Consideration of Expert Reports: The petitioner argued that expert reports favoring the revival of the Adilabad unit were ignored. The court acknowledged the expert opinions but emphasized that the BIFR considered multiple factors, including financial feasibility and strategic importance, in its decision-making process. The court found no evidence of irrational or perverse decision-making by the BIFR. 5. Failure to Implement Findings on Adilabad Unit: The petitioner claimed that the BIFR failed to implement its own findings regarding the viability of the Adilabad unit. The court noted that the BIFR's final decision was based on a comprehensive review of all relevant factors, including expert reports and financial assessments. The decision to exclude Adilabad was consistent with the overall objective of reviving the company. 6. Alleged Arbitrary and Irrational Decision-Making: The petitioner asserted that the decision-making process was arbitrary and lacked transparency. The court found that the BIFR followed the statutory procedures and considered all relevant materials before approving the scheme. The decision was not found to be arbitrary or lacking in bona fides. 7. Role of Extraneous Considerations: The petitioner alleged that extraneous considerations influenced the decision to include Bokajan and exclude Adilabad. The court found no substantial evidence to support this claim. The BIFR's decision was based on a rational assessment of the company's revival prospects and was not influenced by irrelevant factors. 8. Impact of Previous Court Decisions: The court noted that the Delhi High Court had previously dismissed similar challenges to the BIFR's scheme, and the Supreme Court had upheld this decision. The present writ petition was found to be based on the same grounds as the previous petitions, which had already been adjudicated. The court held that the previous decisions were binding and found no new grounds to reconsider the matter. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the BIFR's decision to exclude the Adilabad unit from the revival scheme. The decision was found to be in accordance with the statutory provisions and based on a rational assessment of the company's viability. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in matters involving the BIFR's expertise and statutory mandate.
|
