9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, seeking a declaration that it be declared as a sick industrial company within the meaning of section 2(1)( o ) of the Act. This declaration was sought on the basis of the accounts in respect of the financial year ended on 31-3-1998. The BIFR by its order dated 10-5-1999 (Annexure P-9), declared the petitioner (PPL) as a sick industrial company in terms of section 2(1)( o ). This order was challenged by one of the leading financial institutions, i.e., State Bank of India, in appeal being Appeal No. 101 of 1999 before the AAIFR. By order dated 7-12-1999 (Annexure P-11), the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the BIFR. The effect of the appeal being allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the earlier rejection without examining independently the worth of the second reference application, which was based on the subsequent year s account. The learned counsel then made an attempt to point out what mistake the authorities committed in relation to certain entries reflected in the balance-sheet on the basis of which the declaration was sought. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned two orders, i.e., Annexures P-18 and P-20, I find no substance in any of the submissions, which were pressed into service. None of the submissions has even prima facie substance for admitting this petition, much less interference under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. It being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r one. This court will examine the correctness and legality of findings rendered the BIFR/AAIFR in the earlier petition as and when that matter comes for hearing. 9. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner too has no substance. The perusal of two orders passed by the BIFR and the AAIFR would show that they were based on the accounts/balance-sheet of the year ending on 31-3-1999. Merely as some reference was made to earlier proceedings and the balance-sheet does not vitiate the findings of two authorities. 10. In my opinion, no flaw can be noticed or could be shown to this court which result in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the BIFR as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noting that the mala fides in financial year 1998 account cannot be cured or purified merely by preparing another balance-sheet for the subsequent year (in this case, as on 31st March, 1999). We confirm the BIFR s conclusion that PPL/promoters approached the BIFR with unclean hands. 16. The impugned order is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed." 11. What more is needed for this court except to uphold the impugned orders in its writ jurisdiction. This court is not the second appellate court to again re-examine or reappreciate the entire accountancy factual scenario. All that was possible up to the stage of first appellate court, but not thereafter. Jurisdictional error visible on the face of record alone can be corrected by this court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
