SUNIL AMBWANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS company application has been registered on receipt of an opinion of the BIFR under section 20 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 recorded on 22-5-2001, to wind up the company. ( 2 ) NOTICES were directed to be issued on 21-1-2002 to the company and IDBI, to show cause as to why the company may not be wound up under Section 20 (1) of the Act, read with Section 443 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act ). On 18-2-2002, the office has reported that the notices were sent by registered post on 28-1-2002 fixing the matter for hearing today, i. e. , 18-2-2002. Neither A. D. nor undelivered cover have been returned back. ( 3 ) THE Court has perused the order dated 22-5-2001 of the Board for Industrial and Financial reconstruction. Vijayshree Chemicals Ltd. (VCL), (the Company) was declared as a sick industrial company on 18-8-1999, and the Board had appointed IDBI as the Operating agency to examine the viability of the company and formulate a rehabilitation scheme for its revival. Notices were issued to the company and promoters by the order dated 30-8-2000. The operating agency reported vide its letter dated 17-5-2000 that the company/promoters had not submitted any revival proposal and that the unit was lying closed from October, 1997. By an order dated 22-6-2000, the Board recorded a finding that they have not received any response from the company/promoters, and, thus, a direction was issued to the operating agency to issue advertisement for change in the management of the company. No concrete proposal was received and, thus, the CLB formed a prima facie opinion that the company/ promoters had failed to come up with a rehabilitation proposal and that they were not serious about the revival of the company and were only buying time to continue enjoying the protection available under the Act. The representatives of IDBI, IFCI, Bank of Baroda, SIDBI, PICUP and IREDA submitted that they have no objection to the winding up of the company. UPSEB submitted that their dues were of rs. 161 lakhs and they had no comments to offer on the winding up of the company. The Times guaranty Ltd. (TGL), having their dues of Rs. The representatives of IDBI, IFCI, Bank of Baroda, SIDBI, PICUP and IREDA submitted that they have no objection to the winding up of the company. UPSEB submitted that their dues were of rs. 161 lakhs and they had no comments to offer on the winding up of the company. The Times guaranty Ltd. (TGL), having their dues of Rs. 58 lakhs against the company, also submitted that they have no objection to the winding up of the company and prayed for filing recovery suit. ( 4 ) IN the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Board formed an opinion that the company is not likely to make its net worth exceed its accumulated losses within a reasonable time, while meeting all its financial obligations, and that the company as a result thereof is not likely to become viable in future and, hence, it is just, equitable and in public interest that it should be wound up. The Court noticed the fact that in response of winding up notice, the company/promoters did not appear before the BIFR on 22-5-2001, and that despite issuance of notice by this Court deemed to have been served upon them under the Rules of Court, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the company to make any objection for accepting the opinion of bifr. In the circumstances, this Court accepts the opinion of BIFR and orders the company--Vijayshree Chemicals Ltd. (VCL), with its registered office at shyam Mahal, vishram Bazar, Mathura to be wound up. The official liquidator is appointed as liquidator of the company and is directed to proceed to liquidate the company in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. .