ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS RELATES TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 25(1) OF THE SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1985 (FOR SHORT "THE ACT"), WHICH EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT THE TIME FOR PREFERRING AN APPEAL STARTS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE COPY OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE CHALLENGED IS ISSUED TO THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR PREFERRING AN APPEAL IS 45 DAYS WITH A CONDONABLE FURTHER LIMIT OF 15 DAYS D MAKING A TOTAL PERIOD OF 60 DAYS WITHIN WHICH AN APPEAL COULD BE FILED.

3. A QUESTION HAS ARISEN AS TO WHETHER THE PHRASE "ISSUED TO HIM" IN SECTION 25(1) OF THE ACT INCLUDES SERVICE ON THE AGGRIEVED PARTY.

4. IN THIS CASE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION (BIFR) WAS PASSED ON 2-8-1999. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THEE ACT, IT IS AVERRED THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF BIFR ON 21-9-1999. THEY PREFERRED THE APPEAL ON 4-11-1999, THAT IS, WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT AND 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER.

5. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ACCEPTING THAT THE WO