APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION, NEW DELHI OCL INDIA LIMITED Vs. BIFR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by OCL India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant company') is directed against the order of the Board for Industrials Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the 'BIFR') dated 30.10.2007 Case No. 501 of 2003 whereby the BIFR sanctioned a rehabilitation scheme for Andrew Yule and Co. Limited (Respondent No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent company'). The Appellant company is aggrieved by the direction of the BIFR in paragraph 16 of the impugned order to the fact that the dues of the unsecured creditors, including OCL, would be paid at 54% of tine outstanding principal amount only. The BIFR directed that paragraph 1(h) of the DRS may be amended accordingly.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent company was declared sick by the BIFR on 20.9.2004 in terms of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as (SICA'). A draft rehabilitation scheme (DRS) for revival of the Appellant [second [Respondent?] company was formulated and was circulated to all concerned by the BIFR vide its order dated 20.08.2007 for consent as required under Section 9(2) read with Section 19(1) of SICA and short particulars of the DRS were published in two local dailies inviting objections and suggestions thereon. In the hearing held on 30.10.2007, the BIFR passed the impugned order: Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for tine Appellant company challenged the impugned order on the following grounds: