( 1 ) THE Indian Steel and Wire Products Limited filed this petition with the prayer that the order dated 25. 7. 2003 passed by the The Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short `bifr ) be quashed/set aside. It may be pertinent to mention that the BIFR after hearing all sides for over two years had accepted the revised proposal submitted by respondent No. 13/tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (in short `tisco ). All the creditors also accepted the proposal. According to that proposal, apart from TISCO s outstanding dues of Rs. 20 crores which TISCO has to recover from others, TISCO has undertaken to further invest an amount of about Rs. 38 crores. In other words, the proposal of TISCO was to invest in all at least Rs. 58 crores. This offer of TISCO was accepted by the secured creditors.

( 2 ) AFTER respondent No. 13 s offer was accepted this petition was filed in this court in which it was mentioned that the petitioner s offer was not considered in the proper perspective by the BIFR though the petitioner s offer was as good as the offer of respondent No. 13, if not better. Impression given to the court was that the petitioner is not as large as respondent No. 13, therefore, its offer was not considered seriously. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was and still is prepared to match fully tied up proposal/scheme line by line and would also invest at least Rs. 58 crores within the same period as provided to TISCO. The grievance which has been made out by the petitioner is that its offer has not even been considered in the proper perspective because respondent No. 13 is a giant organization in its comparison.

( 3 ) MR. RAJIV Nayyar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, also submitted that to demonstrate its bona fides, the petitioner company is prepared to deposit the title deeds of 17 Tughlaq Road, New Delhi premises (value of this property is much more than what the value of the entire offer of TISCO) and a banker s cheque of Rs. 5 crores within a period of two weeks with the BIFR. The offer reflected seriousness of the petitioner. We were given the impression that the petitioner was perhaps not treated equally and fairly. In order to ensure that the petitioner is given proper hearing and its proposal is considered in proper perspective in the interest of the petitioner and its creditors, we thought it appropriate to consider the proposal of the petitioner de novo provided the petitioner is absolutely serious about its offer. Therefore, in our order dated 29. 10. 2003, we made it abundantly clear that in the event the amount as undertaken is not deposited, the BIFR shall not consider the new proposal of the petitioner or fully tied up scheme submitted by the petitioner company. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case the petitioner fails to submit fully tied up proposal/scheme matching the proposal/scheme of TISCO, the amount of Rs. 5 crores be forfeited and this amount be distributed towards the arrears of the wages of the workers. We also entertained the faint hope that in case, on BIFR s directions, if TISCO decides to further improve its existing offer, then it would better serve the interest of all concernes and in that eventuality the amount of Rs. 5 crores deposited by the petitioner s company along with the title deeds shall be returned to the petitioner.

( 4 ) ON 29th October 2003, when we passed the order we ourselves were not absolutely certain whether the petitioner would in fact deposit Rs. 5 crores and the title deeds of 17, Tughlaq Road premises but to erase the impression of unfair treatment and to ensure full justice to the petitioner, we made the said order. While making the order, we also had some hope that in case the petitioner gives a matching offer, in that event TISCO may improve its existing offer, which in fact would be eventually in the interest o