bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1018 OF 2004 Modi Rubber Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Dhiraj Mhetre i/b. Mustafa Motiwala for petitioner. Mr.A.S.Rao for respondents. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & K.K.TATED,JJ. DATE : 29TH JANUARY,2010 P.C. 1. Heard. Perused petition. 2. This petition was admitted by this Court by an order dated 30th April, 2004. When the petition was admitted, the matter was pending before the BIFR. Now, the BIFR has framed a Scheme under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “SICA”). The sanctioned scheme is placed before us. Clause 7.34 of the said Scheme reads as under: 7.34 The representative of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai stated the company has not paid the duty on goods imported and demurrage is being incurred and Rs.8.40 crore plus interest due. The Learned Advocate representing the company stated that MRL has applied for extension of the validity of the import license and the company will clear the goods once the validity of the license is extended. The custom authorities may consider the request of the company favourably. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already applied for extension of the validity of the import license and the petitioner has also made some payments from time to time. Under the scheme, the Custom Authorities are directed to consider the request of the Company favourably. Under these circumstances, since the petitioner is already before the Customs Authority, we have no manner of doubt that the Customs Authority will consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with the Scheme framed by the BIFR. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no further orders are necessary. The petition accordingly stands disposed of keeping all contentions open. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)