9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Applications for modification of stay order, Financial deterioration of applicants, Compliance with Tribunal's order, Modification of Bank guarantee requirement
The judgment involves applications for modification of a stay order issued by the Tribunal, requiring the applicants to deposit a total of Rs. 16 lakhs in cash and an equal amount via Bank Guarantee within a specified timeframe. The applicants sought modification of the stay order due to financial difficulties post the original order. The Senior Counsel highlighted the negative balance in the net wealth of the applicants and the poor liquidity situation as per the Chartered Accountant certificate. The applicants proposed a pre-deposit of 25% in cash and requested the waiver of the Bank guarantee condition, citing challenges in raising the necessary funds for the guarantee. The Senior Departmental Representative opposed the modification, arguing that the applicants had not made efforts to comply with the original stay order and had instead approached the High Court, which upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Departmental Representative contended that the liquidity position of the firms was sound based on the Balance Sheet provided, and therefore, the modification requests should be dismissed. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties and noted that the High Court had previously dismissed the petition challenging the original stay order. The Tribunal reviewed the financial documents of the firms involved and observed the current assets, sales revenue, and sundry debtors. Despite upholding the cash pre-deposit requirement as per the original order, the Tribunal decided to modify the Bank guarantee condition. The Tribunal directed the applicants to provide a Bank guarantee for 25% of the total amount instead of the initial 50% requirement. The modified stay order granted an extension for compliance until a specified date in 1995, with a follow-up hearing scheduled to confirm compliance with the modified terms. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the applicants' plea for modification of the stay order based on their financial difficulties, balancing the need for compliance with the original order and the applicants' changed circumstances. The Tribunal upheld the cash pre-deposit but reduced the Bank guarantee requirement, providing the applicants with additional time for compliance. The decision aimed to strike a balance between the interests of the applicants and the requirements of the Tribunal's order, considering the financial challenges faced by the applicants.
|
