1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.59 OF 2001 Thermoflex Cable Industries. ..Petitioner V/s. Datar Switchgear Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.841 OF 2001 L & T Finance Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. Datar Switchgear Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.843 OF 2001 WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.920 OF 2001 Indian Seamless Financial Services Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. Datar Switchgear Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.961 OF 2002 Traffo Electronics ..Petitioner V/s. Datar Switchgear Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.377 OF 2003 Kinetic Finance Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. Datar Switchgear Ltd. ..Respondent. 2 None for petitioner. Mr.Shamima Taly with Shaikh Yusuf Ali i/b.S. Mohomedbhai & Co. for Respondent in CP 59/01 & CP961/02. Mrs.Shakuntala Joshi for Petitioner in CP 841/01. Ms.Pranita Mhatre i/b. Shaunak Satpute & Co. for Respondent in CP 841/01, 893/01, 920/01 & CP 377/03. None for petitioner in CP 843/01, 920/01, 901/02 & 377/03. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2008. : OCTOBER 23, 2008. : OCTOBER 23, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. None appears for the Petitioner except in Company Petition No.84 of 2001. Counsel appearing for the said Petitioner states that the Petitioner is not interested in pursuing remedy as the matter is settled with the Respondent company. 2. Be that as it may, it is stated by the Counsel for the Respondent company that BIFR has already sanctioned final rehabilitation scheme in respect of Respondent company and the same is under implementation. In that sense, nothing survives for consideration in the present Petition. There is nothing on record to show that any of the Petitioners have questioned the correctness of the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR. If it is so, the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR will be binding on the 3 Petitioner company and the dues will be paid to the respective Petitioners as per the said scheme. The cause on the basis of which present Petitions have been filed, is no more available to the concerned Petitioners. The Petitioners would be entitled to make grievance only if the Respondent company is unable to discharge its obligations under the scheme by paying outgoings of the respective Petitioners which may include interest awarded by the Board in terms of the sanctioned scheme. In other words, if the Respondent company fails to pay the debts of the Petitioners as per the sanctioned scheme or the interest component thereof, the concerned Petitioner will be free to approach the board for appropriate direction, as may be advised. 3. In addition, the said Petitioner may be free to invoke jurisdiction of Company Court praying for winding up of the Respondent company, if they find that Respondent is unable to pay the dues crystalised under the sanctioned scheme by the BIFR. All the above proceedings are left open to be decided on its own merits. 4. Petitions disposed of on the above basis. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)