JUDGMENT : 1. CA nos.480 and 484, both of 2017 have been moved on behalf of the respective applicants. Directions for filing affidavits are sought on behalf of the persons claiming to be in management of the company. Affidavits-in-opposition to be filed by 30th November, 2017. Replies, if any, be filed on the adjourned date upon advance copies served. List the applications on 7th December, 2017. 2. Resuming her argument Mrs. Agarwal, Learned Advocate submits, the first relevant order passed pursuant to order dated 30th November, 1988 of the Supreme Court accepting the scheme, is order dated 16th December, 1991. By the said order the Company Court cancelled the scheme as had totally failed. On appeal, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18th December, 1991 stayed the order of cancellation of scheme on conditions imposed being, inter alia, that all the creditors were to be paid 1 % of their respective claims on or before 7th January, 1992. By a subsequent order dated 24th March 1992 the monthly payment towards the claims of creditors was directed to be reduced to 1% per month of their respective claims. Mrs. Agarwal explains that originally 5% of the respective claims was paid under the scheme after which 2% per month was to be paid. A Special Leave petition(against the said order dated 24th March, 1992) was registered as Civil no.(S) 6505 of 1992, dealt with and disposed of by the Supreme Court on 22nd March, 1993. The said Court restored monthly payment to the creditors at 2% of their claims giving directions to the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously as well as liberty to it to consider any application for modification of the scheme. 3. IA nos.3 & 4 of 1993 were made in the said disposed of Special Leave Petition. In those applications order dated 11th March, 1994 was passed. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Division Bench by which monthly payment of creditors dues was reduced from 2% to 1% thereof. The said Court directed the committee of management to deposit every month a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with this Court from April, 1994 onwards restoring the matter to the Company Judge for issuing necessary directions for appropriation and distribution of Rs.40 lakhs already deposited and future deposits. The said Court directed the committee of management to deposit every month a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with this Court from April, 1994 onwards restoring the matter to the Company Judge for issuing necessary directions for appropriation and distribution of Rs.40 lakhs already deposited and future deposits. It was made clear that if the committee of management committed default in making the deposits and the same fell in arrears for any two months, it would be appropriate for the Company Court to replace the committee of management by an appropriate alternative mechanism. 4. Mrs. Agarwal submits, that happened when the Company Court passed order dated 7th September, 1994 which stood accepted by the parties. She relies on the following portion in the said order of the Company Court. “Under these circumstances, I withhold the directions regarding the advertisement of the petition for the time being. If only 40 lakhs remains to be distributed, then that shall be done, but after the matter has been made returnable at an adjourned date. The Committee of Management, however, is imperatively to be superseded without any delay. The Official Liquidator is appointed provisional manager over the company and will take possession of all properties, assets and effects thereof. The Committee of Management is provisionally superseded and the company shall be represented in all proceedings by the Official Liquidator, and by the Official Liquidator alone, until further orders of court.” 5. A further order dated 13th December, 1994 was also passed by which the committee of management was changed. In this order Mrs. Agarwal relies on the following portion : “They are under no delusion that they are getting or can get anything more than the precarious right of interim management subject to orders of court including those in the winding up matters. 6. Under these circumstances the new committee of management has to be made up of the Jain-Jalan group with a wishful hope that the monthly payment of Rs.8 lakh as ordered by the Supreme Court will come in time and that the management will be able to stave off the onslaught of many claims and many creditors.” 7. Mrs. Agarwal submits, the Company Court by its said order dated 13th December, 1994 had chosen one out of two contenders to be the committee of management in replacing the defaulting committee. The unsuccessful contender preferred an appeal from the said order. Mrs. Agarwal submits, the Company Court by its said order dated 13th December, 1994 had chosen one out of two contenders to be the committee of management in replacing the defaulting committee. The unsuccessful contender preferred an appeal from the said order. By judgment dated 21st September, 1995 a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal. She submits, this judgment was also accepted by the parties. She relies on the following portion in the said judgment which is as follows: “Apart from the above comparative aspect of the matter, it is worth mentioning that the impugned order is more or less interlocutory to remain in force till the tenure of the scheme or the final decision on the issue of winding up.” Paucity of time has intervened. Mrs. Agarwal will continue with her submissions on the adjourned date. This Court has noticed two sentences in the said judgment dated 21st September, 1995 which are reproduced below :- “And, in fact, none of the contending parties urged before the said Court for any order that the scheme be declared as unworkable or that it needed modification. All that was contended before the said Court was with regard to substitution of the Management.” 8. On query Mrs. Agarwal submits that till date there is no application filed either for modification of the scheme or that the scheme is unworkable. List on 21st November, 2017 at 3:00 pm or whenever thereafter business of this Court permits.