JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Bihar State Financial Corporation Ltd. (B.S.F.C in short) against the order dated 11.1.2008 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No.5/1999R, by which the learned Company Judge allowed the respondent-company, M/s. Raj Hans Steel Ltd., to avail the benefit of OTS scheme of 2006 and for this purpose, liberty was granted to the respondent-company to avail the chance to apply as per the OTS scheme of 2006. Learned counsel appearing for the B.S.F.C submitted that he had apprised the learned Company Judge that the respondent-company cannot be permitted to avail the benefit of the OTS scheme of 2006, as the said scheme has already expired way back on 5th February, 2007. Besides this, it was also pointed out that the eligibility to avail the benefit of the OTS scheme of 2006 was that the entrepreneur should have deposited 50% of the outstanding principal amount plus 10% of the amount towards interest, which it had failed to deposit and therefore, the respondent-company is not eligible even to apply for the OTS scheme of 2006, especially when the scheme has already expired. It was further submitted that the respondent-company could have applied for the OTS scheme of 2008, which is still operative and is due to expire on 31st December, 2008. Learned counsel for the respondent-company, however, has made lame excuses with regard to non-payment as he is trying to justify the action of the respondent-company by submitting that it had filed an application before the Managing Director, B.S.F.C, to the effect that it should have granted the opportunity to avail the benefit of the OTS scheme of 2006, which obviously could not have been permitted by the B.S.F.C as the minimum requirement of payment of 50% of the outstanding principal amount along with the application was not offered by the respondent-company and therefore, the appellant could not have permitted the respondent-company to avail the benefit of the OTS scheme of 2006 after a lapse of two years in the year 2008 when the order was passed by the learned Company Judge. We, however, in the interest of equity and justice, thought it appropriate to grant the last opportunity to the respondent-company to revive by permitting it to at least deposit the principal amount outstanding, i.e. Rs.30 lacs, which had been advanced to the respondent-company way back in the year 1980 although by the year 2000, i.e. approximately after 28 years, it had paid only a sum of Rs.6.25 lacs and the last payment that had been made by the respondent-company was only on 31.3.1985 and no payment had been made thereafter. Under the circumstance, we find no justification for granting another opportunity to the respondent-company by upholding the order of the learned Company Judge, who permitted the respondent-company to avail the OTS scheme of 2006 even after expiry of the said scheme way back on February,2007 and the utmost liberty that could have been granted to the respondent-company was to avail the benefit of the OTS scheme of 2008, which also has not been availed by the respondent-company so far, by which scheme also the respondent-company is liable to pay at least 50% of the outstanding principal amount, which would not be less than Rs.15 lacs, which he has not agreed to pay. In spite of the grave lapses, we thought it appropriate to permit the respondent-company to deposit at least the outstanding principal amount, which the company was liable to pay back and hence, the opportunity to pay Rs.30 lacs, which was the principal amount, was granted by order dated 18.11.2008, since the respondent-company, in any case, was liable to pay 50% of the outstanding principal amount, if the company was willing to avail the benefit of the OTS scheme of 2008. Under the aforesaid circumstance, we see no justification for the order dated 11.1.2008 granting opportunity to the respondent-company to avail the OTS scheme of 2006, as it was also brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the B.S.F.C that after expiry of the OTS scheme of 2006, if an opportunity is granted to the respondent-company to avail the benefit of the said scheme, that would encourage other defaulters to apply for the said scheme, creating haywire in implementation of the scheme. Under the existing facts and circumstances of the present case, we find absolutely no justification for the respondent-company to avail the OTS scheme of 2006, as it is miserably in debt and has failed to deposit even 50% of the outstanding principal amount. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated 11.1.2008, by which the learned Company Judge granted opportunity to the respondent-company to avail the benefit of the OTS scheme of 2006. The appeal accordingly is allowed and disposed of.