GIRNI KAMGAR SANGHARSHA SAMITI Vs. MATULYA MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and various Respondents. Perused the Auditor's report dated September 20, 1999 obtained by the operating Agency viz. Industrial Development bank of India. Also perused the affidavit of respondent No. 5 dated October 26, 1999 with regard to the aforesaid Auditor's report. In the said affidavit in para 4, it is very clearly pointed out that almost a sum of Rs. 592 lakhs have been paid, which payments/entries apparently appear to be of doubtful nature. The said affidavit also points out various deviations committed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as per Auditor's report.

(2.) MR. Gonsalves, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice the order of B. I. F. R. dated February 13, 1996 wherein the Promoters have categorically undertaken to induct the deficit in the required funds for implementation of the scheme from their own sources to ensure that the projections of the scheme are strictly adhered to. The said order also records that the Company's representative had agreed to the same and also confirmed that the Company's performance is gradually improving and its cash losses are going down.

(3.) MR. Gonsalves, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also brought to our notice the relevant provisions in the sanctioned modified rehabilitation scheme of the B. I. F. R. wherein it is also provided that in case of any delay in realisation of sale proceeds of the flats, the promoters will ensure that adequate funds required as per provisions of the scheme are inducted from their own sources so that implementation of the scheme as per stipulated time framed is not affected. Hence, we issue rule.