JUDGMENT :

K.A. Puj, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanctioning the scheme of arrangement in the nature of compromise between Shree Narmada Aluminium Industries Ltd., its secured and unsecured creditors and shareholders.

2. The company was incorporated on April 15, 1981, in the name and style of Narmada Aluminium Extrusion P. Ltd., under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. This name was subsequently changed to Shree Narmada Aluminium Industries Ltd., with effect from November 9, 1995. The company, due to reasons beyond its control was registered with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Thereafter, the board opined for winding up of the company and the Company Petition No. 256 of 2000 came to be filed with this court. The petitioner-company preferred the appeal before the appellate authority and the said authority has dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the special civil application challenging the validity of the orders passed by the BIFR and the AAIFR but the said petition came to be dismissed. The petitioner preferred the Letters Patent appeal against the order passed in special civil application which also came to be dismissed.

3. The petitioner is the company which was facing financial problems and has started doing the business and regularly paying the current dues statutory and contractual. The petitioner had deposited the substantial amount of Rs.50 lakhs with the registry of this court, pursuant to the order dated October 4, 2005, passed in Company Petition No. 256 of 2000 and shown its bona fide. The petitioner did file a detailed affidavit in the Company Petition No. 256 of 2000 stating therein that, the secured creditors have agreed for one-time settlement for the amount of Rs.200 lakhs as full and final payment and the petitioner has also placed on record the necessary correspondence from the respective secured lenders to the aforesaid effect. The two unsecured creditors have preferred winding up petitions being Company Petitions Nos. 131 and 132 of 1990 before this court which matters are pending because of the pendency of the proceedings before the BIFR and, thereafter, pendency of the present petition. The said two unsecured creditors have also filed Civil Suits Nos. 904 and 905 of 1993 before the Bombay High Court and the petitioner-company has also filed counter claim being Civil Suit No. 1793 of 1993. All these proceedings are still pending. Irrespective of the disputes and alleged claims and without prejudice the said alleged unsecured creditors are also put at par with the other unsecured creditors of the scheme and thus are offered the same compromise as is offered to the other unsecured creditors. Upon sanctioning of the scheme the above petition and civil suits shall be withdrawn as not pressed. The petitioner is under the process of restructuring its manufacturing unit and to attain the object of full-fledged revival of the unit. The petitioner has also made offers to other creditors to settle their dispute with the company. The petitioner had shown its readiness and willingness to offer to the respective creditors and shareholders as per the scheme. The petitioner-company has sustained losses in the past years but is coming out from the woods and has made strenuous efforts to revive the company and for that the company has also shown its bona fide and potentiality before this court. It is further stated that the projected profit and loss statement of the petitioner-company is produced before the court. The State sales tax authority has proposed to initiate the coercive action against the petitioner-company for non-payment of deferred sales tax dues to the extent of Rs.2.50 crores. The petitioner-company is in the process