We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length.

2. The appellant is the promoter/ex-management of Rajhans Steel Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as the Company, for short).

3. Bereft of the long drawn out facts relating to the history of this litigation which will only cause confusion, the basic facts are that the Company became sick, its case was considered by the BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA). Under Section 20 of SICA, the BIFR recommended that the Company be wound up as its rehabilitation was not possible.

4. Pursuant to the recommendation of the BIFR, the learned Company Judge ordered the company to be wound up. It has not been pointed out that there was any appeal under Section 25 of the SICA to the AAIFR against the said order/recommendation of the BIFR. Thus the order of BIFR which can be challenged only by way of such appeal, and thereafter by way of a writ petition, attained finality.

5. After the order of winding up, the liquidator took charge of the assets and advertised the assets for sale.

6. At this stage the promoters i.e. the appellant submitted a scheme of rehabilitation before the learned Company Judge and sought consideration of the same. By the impugned order dated 25.6.2010 the learned Company Judge has directed, that he is not inclined to sanction the revival package and that the winding up proceedings will continue, and that fresh advertisement for sale will be issued in terms of earlier orders dated 4.12.2009 and 11.12.2009. It may also be mentioned here that the winding up matter was pending before the learned Company Judge since 1999 and for about ten years which had elapsed the promoters/Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation could not revive the industry and only after bids were offered pursuant to the sale notice published by the liquidators the alleged revival package was submitted by the DVPL to the prejudice of the bidders. It would also be relevant to point out here that DVPL was one of the bidders. Accordingly it was held in the impugned order by the learned Company Judge that this revival package, which was to be financed by the DVPL, was a backdoor method of acquiring the company in liquidation.

7. The basic grievance of the appellant is firstly that the I.A. No. 746 of 2010 filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Company Judge was not listed on that particular date. This is at best a technical argument because the basic question which is discussed below in this order does not involve the respondent No. 2 or his I.A.

No. 746 of 2010.

8. The basic question to be examined in this appeal is, whether it is open to the promoters to submit a rehabilitation package before the Company Judge in proceedings for winding up initiated on the recommendation of the BIFR, at any stage of such winding up proceedings and to claim entitlement to consideration of such rehabilitation package by the 'Company Judge.

9. The scheme of SICA' is as follows.

10. By Section 32, the Act has been given overriding effect. . .

11. The case of a sick company is referred to the BIFR u/s 15.

12.. An enquiry is made into the working of the Sick Industrial Companies by the BIFR. During such enquiry, distress proceedings against the company remain suspended u/s 22 of the SICA.

13. The BIFR examines the feasibility of rehabilitation.

14. If the Board comes to a conclusion that rehabilitation is not possible, it recommends winding up of the sick company u/s 20(1). Such order of the Board is appealable before the AAIFR u/s 25. Section 26 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts or other authorities in respect of any action taken or to be taken pursuant to any power conferred by or under SICA.

15. If an interested person is not satisfied even with the appellate order of AAIFR, the only course open to such aggrieved person is to challenge the order of BIFR or AAIFR in writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

16. It is not op