( 1 ) COMPANY Petition 3 of 1991 was filed on 7th January 1991 seeking winding up of lie respondent company on the ground that the Company was unable to pay its debts. The petition was admitted to hearing: citation was directed to he published in newspapers and the Provisional Liquidator was appointed in terms of orders made by this Court on 30th April 1993. On 25th January 1994 the appeal filed by the Company against the order dated 30th April 1993 was dismissed by a Division Bench. The operative portion of the order dated 25th January 1994 reads as under:-

"on consideration of the matter we find no ground to interfere. However. we leave the appellant to move the learned single Judge for appropriate orders in view of the supervening facts which have come into being during the pendency of this appeal. "

( 2 ) NOW this application lias been filed by the Company praying that this Court may he pleased to:-

"a) Recall/modify the order dated 30. 4. 93. or in the alternative. b) Allow the Applicant Company to work and carry on its business under the supervision of the official liquidator/provisional liquidator, appointed by this Hon ble Court. c) Clarify that the passing of the order dated 30. 4. 93 passed by this Hon ble Court does not create any conflict between this Hon hle Court and the BIFR and that BIFR/aaifr is free to carry on its proceedings as statutorily enjoined upon it to do so. "

( 3 ) IT is not necessary to restate tlie facts which have been noticed in the order dated 30th April. 1993. It appears that during the pendency of the winding up petition the Company had filed before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) a reference under Section 15 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. 1985. (for short the Act ). This fact was not brought to the notice of this Court by the Company. The fact that the Company had approached BIFR was brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner on 18th March 1993 and on that date. the petitioner also placed on record a copy of order dated 4th March, 1993 passed by BIFR. In the order dated 4th March 1993 BIFR clarified that no enquiry had been initiated under Section 16 (1) of the Act pending a decision on the admissibility of reference made under Section 15 (1) of the Act. It was also noticed by BIFR that. while taking up the case to consider whether the reference filed by the company is valid for an enquiry under Section 16 (1) of the Act. the Bench observed that certain issues are not clear in deciding tlie admissibility of the reference filed in Form "a". A reference to the aforesaid order has been made in the order of this Court dated 30th April 1993. Admittedly,reference made by the Company under Section 15 of the Act was dismissed by as non-maintainable in terms of order dated 18th August. 1993 passed hy BIFR,inter-alia. holding that enquiry under Section 16 of the Act was not conducted in view of insufficiency of proof in support of Company s claim regarding the number of workers employed in the Company. It was also noticed hy BIFR that due to the reasons stated in the last proceedings no enquiry was proceeded with under Section 16 (1)01 the Act. It seems that reference to "last proceedings" is to the proceedings as recorded in the order dated 4th March 1993. In the proceedings dated 4tl] March 1993 it was also noticed that in the absence of balance-sheet not being made available to the Banks. the hanks were indark on the legal requirements for making a reference to BIFR. The order dated 18th August, 1993 is subject matter of appeal before the Appellate authority under the Act.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the Company, the supervening fact which has come into being during the pendency of appeal before the Division Bench, is the pendency of aforesaid appeal before the Appellate authority. Mr. Rawal, learned counsel for the Company. vehemently contends that in view of pendency of appeal under Section 25 of the Act, the bar contained