JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30-1-2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 362/2000, appellant has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and carries on business of running solvent extraction plant and oil refinery situate at Pipariya, District Hoshangbad. It was engaged in manufacture of edible and non-edible oils. It was financed by Madhya Pradesh Finance Corporation, Madhya Pradesh Small Scale Industries Development Corporation and State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "Finance Corporation", "Development Corporation" and "SBI" respectively). Due to defaults, Development Corporation took possession of appellant's factory on 11-8-1994 u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The appellant challenged this action of Development Corporation in Writ Petition No. 2842/94 before this Court. During the pendency of the petition, appellant submitted an application on 23-6-1997 offering one-time settlement of the dues of secured creditors. Development Corporation accepted the proposal. This Court dismissed the said writ petition on 8-7-1997 as infructuous. On 31-7-1997. Development Corporation and appellant entered into an agreement whereby Development Corporation agreed to accept Rs. 235 lakhs against the institutional loan, liabilities (Rs. 10 lakhs initially and thereafter Rs. 5 lakhs p.m.) and distribute on prorata basis amongst Development Corporation. Finance Corporation and SBI. While entering into this agreement the consent of SBI was not taken. However, appellant paid only Rs. 10 lakhs which was adjusted by Development Corporation against the legal expenses of Rs. 18 lakhs. No further payment was made by appellant. Thus the agreement dated 31-7-1997 was not implemented by the appellant. The appellant made the reference u/s 15(1) of Sick Industrial Company's (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'SICA') showing the accumulated lossess of Rs. 413 lakhs against the net worth Rs. 217 lakhs. By order dated 5-3-1999, Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'BIFR') declared the appellant sick and appointed Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "IDBI") as the operating agency (OA) u/s 17(3) of SICA to examine the proposal of the appellant and to prepare the draft rehabilitation scheme. The SBI filed Original Application No. 35/98 on 3-8-1997 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur for recovery of its dues. The SBI filed Original Application No. 35/98 on 3-8-1997 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur for recovery of its dues. After registration of reference u/s 15 Recovery of Debts Due to Banking and Financial Institution Act, 1993, further proceedings in Original Application filed by the SBI before the Tribunal, Jabalpur could not be proceeded because of the statutory protection available to the appellant u/s 22(1) of SICA. IDBI received appellant's proposal, prepared and circulated a background note for the joint meeting which was held on 30-8-1999 providing for repayment of liabilities to the extent of Rs. 255 lacs as against the outstanding dues of Rs. 1278 lacs. It was contended by the appellant in the meeting that during the period the stock were lying unsold, there was deterioration to the extent of Rs. 2.15 crore and that the losses caused thereby should be adjusted against the one-time settlement amount of Rs. 288.80 lakhs acceptable to the SBI but this was not accepted by SBI. Another joint meeting was held on 21-5-2001 but no consensus could be reached between the SBI and the appellant. Failure to reach any settlement was reported to BIFR at the hearing on 30-5-2001. SBI had shown willingness to accept Rs. 288.80 lakhs by way of onetime settlement, but was not willing to accept the appellant's contention that the amount of Rs. 2.15 crore as loss due to deterioration during the period of storage should be deducted from one time settlement amount. The SBI further stated before the BIFR that amount of Rs. 288.80 lakhs could be accepted only upto 30-6-2001 and, thereafter, the Reserve Bank of India guidelines (relating to settlement of NPAs as one time measure) would expire and SBI's dues would amount to Rs. 11 crores. It was also reported by SBI to BIFR that appellant is not complying with the directions to route the transaction through SBI of India. BIFR formed the view that appellant was taking undue advantage of the protection under SICA and had defaulted in payment of instalments to Development Corporation. There being no possibility of rehabilitation, BIFR further formed the prima facie opinion for the winding up of appellant-company. Even at this stage 45 days time was given to appellant to reach to some settlement with SBI. Objections in response to the show cause notice for winding up were heard by BIFR on 28-9-2001. There being no possibility of rehabilitation, BIFR further formed the prima facie opinion for the winding up of appellant-company. Even at this stage 45 days time was given to appellant to reach to some settlement with SBI. Objections in response to the show cause notice for winding up were heard by BIFR on 28-9-2001. BIFR concluded that the appellant had not submitted any proposal for rehabilitation, and that revival on long-term basis is not possible. Accordingly BIFR confirmed the prima facie opinion for the winding up of appellant/company. This order of BIFR was challenged before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Authority"). It was urged before the Appellate Authority that the appellant is prepared to pay Rs. 288.80 lakhs after adjusting the loss of Rs. 2.15 crore due to deterioration of goods which could not be sold despite appellant's request for quick disposal. Appellate Authority held that SBI's dues in fact amounted to Rs. 11 crores. It was only under the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines of July 2000, which were issued as one-time measure for settlement of outstanding non-performing assets that SBI India was willing to accept one-time settlement of Rs. 288.80 lakhs provided it was done by 30-6-2001, which was the last date for the purpose of reaching the settlement under those guidelines. Appellant failed to avail the benefits of those guidelines within the aforesaid period. Appellate Authority concluded that after 30-6-2001 one-time settlement of Rs. 288.80 lacs is no longer valid. It also observed that the appellant company abused the provisions of SICA and the reference was filed for the sole purpose of wriggling out of commitment to make payments to the secured creditors. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. This order of the Appellate Authority was challenged by the appellant before this Court in Writ Petition No. 362/02 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge observing that the case does not indicate any error in the decision making process and warranting judicial review. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred this appeal. We have heard Shri A.G. Dhande, learned Senior counsel for the appellant and perused the record. His contentions are catalogued as under:- (1) The BIFR should have directed the SBI and other secured lenders to review their stand with respect to the settlement of the dispute. We have heard Shri A.G. Dhande, learned Senior counsel for the appellant and perused the record. His contentions are catalogued as under:- (1) The BIFR should have directed the SBI and other secured lenders to review their stand with respect to the settlement of the dispute. (2) The winding of the company was not just and equitable as the company has demonstrated that it has contributed to the national exchequer through its operations and the operation of the company was in the interest of shareholders, lenders, employees, State and National exchequer and that the viable scheme is possible to be implemented if not unreasonably opposed by secured lenders. (3) The BIFR has erred in not properly appreciating the role played by the SBI and Development Corporation in blocking the revival plans' of the company time and again, therefore, company could not generate surplus funds to meet the one-time settlement. (4) The BIFR has erred in relying upon the SBI's biased report relating to the reasons for losses incurred by the company which are totally contrary to the facts. (5) The BIFR ignored the fact that the settlement agreed to by the appellant on 31-7-1997 was contingent upon the operation of the company running without interruption, and for this purpose a total of 12 months of moratorium on interest free basis for payment of monthly instalments was sought from the secured lenders but the same was refused. (6) The promoters of the company made an investment of Rs. 50 lacs to revive the company but due to non-co-operation of SBI, the company could not be revived. Regarding the first contention, Shri Dhande strenuously urged that there was a loss in the value of stocks while they were in the custody of SBI, therefore, BIFR should have directed the bank to review their stand. On carefully perusing the record we find that the appellant agreed for one-time settlement involving all the dues of all the secured creditors including SBI. In view of the strong objection raised by the State Bank of India, IDBI was appointed as O.A. in terms of section 16(2) of the SICA with directions to report, amongst other things, all the outstanding dues of the bank and the institutions in the appellant's annual accounts. In view of the strong objection raised by the State Bank of India, IDBI was appointed as O.A. in terms of section 16(2) of the SICA with directions to report, amongst other things, all the outstanding dues of the bank and the institutions in the appellant's annual accounts. The O.A. submitted detailed report vide letter dated 11-1-1999 concluding that the appellant had played a fraud on the SBI and other financial institutions, therefore, the SBI should be allowed to proceed with recovery proceedings pending before Debt Relief Tribunal, Jabalpur. The record of the proceedings of the hearing held on 30-5-2001 in Case No. 223/98 shows that the Bench of the BIFR expressed serious reservations regarding the way the appellant had manipulated its accounts. In the opinion of the Board, the appellant never bothered about any of the provisions of law and its conduct was not above board. It approached the Board at a late stage which was a matter of serious concern. The appellant could not show as to why S.B.I. should not have been allowed to proceed with legal action for recovery of its dues. The stand of the appellant was that it was running and making profits. If that was the case, it should have intimated to the board, the amount it was willing to pay at regular intervals to all the secured creditors. The appellant did not submit any rehabilitation scheme. The S.B.I. was agreeable for the settlement of their dues by way of one-time settlement by receipt of Rs. 288.80 lacs but the appellant was not prepared to pay the one-time settlement amount. The S.B.I. was justified in submitting that the amount of Rs. 288.80 lacs was acceptable to them under the Reserve Bank of India guidelines only which were valid till 30-6-2001. The S.B.I. well in time made it clear that after 30-6-2001 the settlement of S.B.I. would be Rs. 11 crores plus interest as per the documentation of the bank and the appellant. On 5-3-1999 the Board directed the appellant to route all their transactions through its financial bankers only but the appellant did not adhere to these directions and violated the same. As no viable rehabilitation proposal was submitted by the appellant the bank was justified in filing the suit against the appellant-company for settlement of their claim. On 5-3-1999 the Board directed the appellant to route all their transactions through its financial bankers only but the appellant did not adhere to these directions and violated the same. As no viable rehabilitation proposal was submitted by the appellant the bank was justified in filing the suit against the appellant-company for settlement of their claim. We find that the appellant tried to take undue advantage of the protection available to it under SICA. The appellant misutilized the time. The appellant did not submit any revival proposal for being considered by the Board. The appellant did not deposit even a small amount to prove their sincerity and bona fides. It is the responsibility of the borrower to meet any shortfall in the current assets, therefore, the bank was justified in not accepting the contention of the appellant that it should adjust the loss of Rs. 2.15 crores due to deterioration of goods. Bank was prepared to suffer the loss of Rs. 11 crores. The appellant never displayed its sincerity and seriousness towards the rehabilitation process and refused to accept the reasonable proposal of the secured creditors who had lent their money, which was nothing but public money. Therefore, the BIFR was justified in not directing the bank to review their stand. The contention of Shri Dhande that the winding up of the appellant-company was not just and equitable also deserves to be rejected. It is true that it is in the interest of national exchequer, share holders, lenders, employees and the State that the production in the factory should go on and winding up of the company should be last recourse, but the appellant did not submit any viable scheme. There is nothing on record to indicate that the bank or any other creditor tried to block the revival plan of the appellant. The appellant never earnestly tried to reach a one-time settlement. The Board made all the possible attempts on its part for the revival of the appellant-company but the appellant never showed sincerity in submitting any viable scheme for rehabilitation. The other contentions of Shri Dhande are also sans substance. It cannot be said that due to non-co-operation of the SBI, the appellant-company could not be revived. The Appellate Authority, while deciding the Appeal No. 358/2001, rightly found that SBI's dues in fact amounted to Rs. 11 crores. SBI was willing to accept one-time settlement of Rs. The other contentions of Shri Dhande are also sans substance. It cannot be said that due to non-co-operation of the SBI, the appellant-company could not be revived. The Appellate Authority, while deciding the Appeal No. 358/2001, rightly found that SBI's dues in fact amounted to Rs. 11 crores. SBI was willing to accept one-time settlement of Rs. 288.80 lacs. It was the appellant who did not co-operate. According to the SBI 30-6-2001 was the last date for the purpose of reaching the settlement under the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. The appellant failed to avail the benefits of those guidelines. The SBI time and again made it clear that after 30-6-2001 the liability of the appellant would be to the tune of Rs. 11 crores and interest thereon. After 30-6-2001 the offer of SBI regarding one-time settlement of Rs. 288.80 lacs lapsed. Even before us, it is not the case of the appellant that it is willing to pay Rs. 11 crores or any lesser amount. The perusal of the record reveals that the appellant has abused the provisions of SICA. The appellant is litigating before different forums for the sole purpose of wriggling out of liability to make payments to the secured creditors. The rehabilitation of the appellant does not appear to be feasible. The conclusions of BIFR and appellate authority do not warrant any interference by way of judicial review. The learned single Judge rightly observed that the case does not indicate any error in the decision making process warranting judicial review. It was just, equitable and in public interest to wind up the appellant-company. The appellants have failed to make out any ground for interference in the impugned order. There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed at admission stage without notice to other parties.