http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: M/S S.R.F. LIMITED

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M/S GARWARE PLASTICS AND POLYESTERS LTD. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/03/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2228            1995 SCC  (3) 465  JT 1995 (3)    11        1995 SCALE  (2)187

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: K.   RAMASWAMY, J.: 1.   Leave granted. 2.   These appeals By special leave arise from the  judgment and order of the Division     Bench of the Delhi High  Court made  in  Civil Writ Petition No. 1493/94  dated  August  8, 1994.  The appellants are respondent No.3 and respondent No. 4-  M/s Flowmore Polyesters Ltd, (for short, ’Flowmore’)  in the writ petition and 3rd appellant-B.P. Mittal is a  share- holder.  Flowmore was closed from August 1990.  Pursuant  to a  reference made by its Board of Directors under  Sub-s.(1) of  s. 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies  (Special  Provi- sions) Act, 1985, (for short, ’SICA’) Flowmore was  declared a sick industrial company (for short, ’sick company’) by the Board  for  Industrial  and  Financial  Reconstruction  (for short, ’BEFR’) by order dated December 6, 1991.  By an order made  under  s.  17(3) of SICA, the IFCI  was  appointed  as operating  agency (for short, ’OA’) to prepare  a  financial package  to revive Flowmore with a cut off date as  30.9.92. By  clause  (3)  thereof, OA was  directed  to  examine  the feasibility of amalgamation of Flowmore with other  "healthy companies  or change of management of the company  on  stand alone  basis" and directed to submit its report by July  30, 1992,  The  OA  invited offers  from  the  parties  evincing interest in the revival of Flowmore and requested to  submit their  revival  proposals before May 15,  1992.   The  first appellant  (for  short, ’SRF’), the  first  respondent  (for short,  ’Garware’)  and Assam Asbestos  Limited  (for  short ’AAL’)  submitted  their respective  schemes.   The  schemes submitted  on  15.7.92 (after seeking three  extensions)  by Garware  and AAL were on ’Stand Alone’ basis while  the  one submitted  by  SRF was for "merger" of  Flowmore  with  SRF. Despite  the BIFR sending notices to all  parties  including Garware  intimating  that  they  would  be  heard  on  their respective schemes on October 5, 1992 and of receipt of such notices by them, Garware did not appear.  SRF and AAL  being

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

represented through their agents were heard.  On October  5, 1992, BIFR gave further time to SRF and 14 AAL and all other bidders to submit their final offers along -with their revival proposals to the OA by November 7,  1992 so as to enable it to submit its report by October 13, 1992. OA  had stated at the hearing that SRF, Garware and AAL  had already   undertaken  techno-economic  viability  study   of Flowmore  prior  to the receipt of the  proposals  and  "the consensus  at  the joint meeting of the banks  and  the  in- stitutions was that only the proposal of NV s SRF Ltd. based on  merger of the unit with SRF was acceptable".   The  BIFR passed  an  order  stating  in  para  10  therein  that  the representatives  of AAL shall submit by October 15, 1992  to the  Bench and OA with a copy thereof to the banks  and  the institutions,  the detailed proposals for rehabilitation  of the  company indicating the source of their  technology  and the  expenditure  involved  therein.   The  OA  was  further directed to give detailed right-up on technology proposed to be utilised for manufacture of various products, breakup  of processing  features,  dues  etc.   All  the  proposals  for revival  of the unit if found unviable, the OA was  required to  explore  the possibility of change of  management.   The copy  of the order even though was sent to Garware,  it  did not file any revised scheme with OA or review application to the  Board  as to why its earlier proposal should  not  have been rejected.  By proceedings dated October 19, 1992, BIFR, at  the  request  of  AAL, granted  extension  of  time  for submitting  revised proposals to the OA up. to  November  7, 1992.   It was further stated that "no further extension  of time will be granted".  Even this order was communicated  to the Garware but it did not submit any revised scheme to  the OA  by  November 7, 1992.  BIFR sent notice  on  the  report submitted  by  the OA on November 5, 1992,  to  all  parties including  Garware intimating that it would hear the  matter on  December  11,  1992 and Annexure-B is the  copy  of  the notice sent to all.  On November 30, 1992, OA submitted  its evaluation  report  as  directed  by  BIFR  on  the  revival proposal  submitted  by SRF and AAL.  On December  3,  1992, Garware by its letter addressed to AAL offered its technical assistance  to AAL for revival of Flowmore.  On December  8, 1992, the OA submitted its report to BIFR along with minutes of  the joint meeting it had held with banks  and  financial institutions.  It would, therefore, be apparent that instead of  submitting  its  revised proposal to  the  OA  or  BIFR, Garware  had  agreed with AAL to assist it  for  revival  of Flowmore.   At the time of hearing by BIFR, on December  11, 1992, the AAL had referred to and BIFR had taken note of the letter  of Garware dated December 3, 1992, in which  Garware had undertaken to assist AAL for the revival of Flowmore  on stand  alone  basis,  as  is evident  from  para  3  of  the proceedings  at page 130 of the paper book.   Although  time and again, Garware was given repeated opportunities to  sub- mit  its  revised scheme for revival of  Flowmore  on  stand alone  basis, it had chosen to stand out from BIFR  and  had contracted   with  AAL  to  give  its   technical   know-how assistance to AAL for consideration for revival of Flowmore. 3.   On December 11, 1992, BIFR had considered the proposals of  SRF  and AAL.  At this juncture, it may be  relevant  to note  that one ATCO, a U.S. based company, also  represented to  assist AAL and appeared before the Board which  was  di- rected to deposit by December 1992 an amount of one  million U.S. dollars in a ’No Lien Account’ with the Lead Bank,  the State Bank of Saurashtra, and latter 15

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

was directed to communicate, by December 21, 1992, to the OA with  a copy marked to the BIFR whether ATCO  had  deposited the amount with them or not.  AAL and ATCO were directed  to submit by December 28, 1992 the revised proposal with the OA marking  a copy to BIFR, besides making available any  other information  required by OA after adopting cut off  date  of 30th  September 1992.  SRF was also directed to  submit  its modified revival proposal within the aforesaid period.   The BIFR thereafter in the final order directed to submit to  it by  January  18,  1993 a revival report of SRF  and  AAL  by January  18,  1993 along with minutes of its  joint  meeting with Banks and financial institutions.  It had also  ordered that "no request for extension of time either for deposit of fund  or for submission of proposal shall be entertained  in any  case"  and that it would hear the case as  soon  as  OA submitted its report.  On January 13, 1993, the OA submitted its  report.  Again on February 15, 1993, BIFR had sent  no- tice  to  all parties including Garware intimating  that  it would  hear  the matter on March 18, 1993, (Annex-C  is  the notice).   On March 18, 1993, Garware did not appear  before the BIFR.  BIFR noted that two schemes submitted by SRF  and AAL were being considered.  After hearing the parties,  SRF, AAL/ATCO  and  Flowmore, the order was  reserved.   By  this stage, ATCO had backed out from its earlier proposal and  it did  not  deposit  the amount as  directed  in  the  earlier proceedings.  It would, thus, be clear that after submitting its revival proposal on stand alone basis, despite  repeated directions  and notices, Garware neither complied  with  the directions  of  the BIFR for modification  of  its  original scheme  as per the R-BI guidelines for evinced  any  further interest  in  the matter of revival of the sick  company  on stand  alone  basis  nor did it participate in  any  of  the proceedings before BIFR. 4.   By order dated April 23, 1993, BIFR approved the scheme of revival of Flowmore proposed by SRF with the  observation that  "However, its main and substantial demerit is that  it envisages much larger sacrifices from financial institutions banks  apart from a huge tax-shield of Rs. 10. 17 crores  at the cost of the Central Exchequer under Section 72-A of  the Income Tax Act, which makes the proposal, in comparison with that of AAL too expensive an alternative for the revival  of the  sick  company.  The large stream of  gross  profits  of nearly  Rs.73 crores over a period of first seven years,  in the  context  of which a further gain of Rs. 10.  17  crores under  Section 72-A would be wholly unwarranted.  " The  SRF in its letter dated March 23, 1993 and April 16, 1993  filed before   BIFR  expressly  had  given  up   s.72A   benefits, Therefore, by petition dated May 4, 1993, SRF sought  review of  the  order  dated  April  23,  1993  pointing  out   its undertaking  in the aforesaid two letters and requested  the Board to modify the order and approve the merger scheme.  By order dated November 1993, BIFR had rectified the mistake. 5.   Before  it  was done, SRF filed an  appeal  before  the Appellate    Authority   for   Industrial   and    Financial Reconstruction  (for short, ’Appellate Authority’).  On  May 1993,  the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal  on  the ground  that order dated April 23, 1993 was only an  interim order.  By a joint meeting held on June 10, 1993, the  banks and  financial  institutions  including OA  agreed  for  the merger proposal submitted by SRF as "most appropriate" 16 and they recommended to the BIFR accordingly by its  report. ATCO also file an appeal before the Appellate Authority.  On September 7, 1993, the Chief Office of the ATCO stated  that ATCO  was not willing to invest any money in  the  Flowmore.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

So  the  appeal  was  dismissed.  ATCO  then  filed  a  writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad which was also  dis- missed as withdrawn on October 27, 1993. 6.   As stated earlier, by proceedings dated November  1993, BIFR had rectified the mistake it had committed and accepted rehabilitation-cum-merger   scheme  of  SRF   and   directed circulation  and publication of the draft schemes and  fixed January  27,  1994  for hearing of the  objections  or  sug- gestions  to the scheme.  The copy thereof was also sent  to Garware  - Annex-D.  On January 14, 1994 Garware  filed  the appeal  before  the Appellate Authority  against  the  order dated  November 19, 1993 and on January 21, 1994  and  after hearing the arguments of all concerned, order was  reserved. Before it pronounced the order, Garware filed writ  petition No.354/94  before  the High Court of  Bombay  at  Aurangabad Bench which admittedly has no territorial jurisdiction.  The High Court did not pass any interim orders but issued notice returnable  on  February  8, 1994.   On  January  27,  1994, Garware  appeared before- the BIFR and admitted its  failure to  submit its revival proposal after rejecting its  initial proposal.   By  proceedings  dated  January  28,  1994,  the Appellate  Authority  dismissed the appeal of  the  Garware. Subsequently,  Garware amended the writ petition  which  was transferred by this Court to the Delhi High Court. 7.   The Division Bench allowed the writ petition  primarily on  the  ground that Garware is "an interested  person"  and "deeply interested in the revival of’ the Flowmore by "stand alone  basis".  The High Court set aside the orders of  BIFR dated  November  19,  1993 made without  notice  to  Garware noting that it was violative of principle of natural justice and  fair  play.   The  merger  scheme  entails  with   huge financial  sacrifice  at the cost of the  central  exchequer without  notice either to the Central Government or  to  the Central Board of Direct Taxes and that, therefore, the order of  revival of Flowmore (sick company) with SRF was  bad  in law.   Accordingly, the orders dated November 19,  1993  and January 27, 1994 of BIFR and order dated January 28, 1994 of the  Appellate  Authority were set aside  and  remitted  the matter   to  the  BIFR  for  reconsideration  and   decision according to law. 8.   Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the first appellant,   contended  that  the  High  Court  was   wholly unjustified  in  its finding that Garware is  an  interested person  and deeply interested in the revival of Flowmore  on stand alone basis.  The BIFR was justified in its conclusion that SRF alone was in the field to revive Flowmore.  Garware though  was  given number of chances to submit  its  revised scheme  on stand alone basis, it did not do it. The  revival by  merger  was not vitiated for failure to give  notice  to Garware.   Garware  at  no point of  time  had  evinced  any interest after rejecting its revival scheme by BIFR nor  did it  submit  fresh  proposals.   The  consistent  conduct  of Garware would show that Garware is not an interested person. The omission to appear either before BIFR or OA with revised proposal is eloquent and self speaking.  Its agreement  with AAL would indicate that it was interested only in earning 17 profits.   Garware lacked bona-fides in the revival  of  its trade  rival-Flowmore and intended to keep its  trade  rival closed  for long, as is evident from its conduct  of  filing the. writ petition in Bombay High Court at Aurangabad  which has no territorial jurisdiction since Flowmore is admittedly in  Uttar  Pradesh and no part of the cause  of  action  had arisen  within  the territorial jurisdiction of  the  Bombay High Court. - Admittedly, it is a trade rival and had  trade

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

interest.   It  is  interested to  prolong  the  revival  of Flowmore   so  as  to  keep  the  company  away   from   the competition.   It had acquiesced to the order passed by  the BIFR at different dates.  The High Court was, therefore, not right  in its conclusion that Garware was deeply  interested person  and is entitled to file its revised scheme on  stand alone  basis.  While conceding that notices to  the  Central Government and the Central Board of Direct Taxes necessarily should  have been given by the BIFR, he contended  that  SRF had  expressly given up before BIFR the benefits of  s.72-A. During  the  course of the hearing in the  High  Court,  his counter-part,  Shri  Harish Salve, had  undertaken  and  SRF still  stood by, that the revival scheme would be  operative from  April  1, 1994.  Thereby, other benefits  of  set  off under  s.70,  71  and  72 of the Income  Tax  Act  would  be marginalised.   Therefore,  there would be no  revenue  sac- rifices to the State.  The benefit of rebate on interest  on the  outstanding loans paid during relevant accounting  year to  the banks and financial institutions would be  available either  to  Flowmore on stand alone basis or SRF  on  merger basis since it would arise only after the rehabilitating the company.   Therefore,  there is no revenue loss  or  revenue sacrifice to the State.  The preamble and the provisions  of SICA  would indicate that revival of the company  should  be done  expeditiously.  The proceedings before BIFR or  Appel- late  Authority  or before the Court under Article  226  are meant  to  be disposed of expeditiously and  should  not  be procrastinated.   The  delay  in revival  would  entail  the workmen with great financial hardship and loss of revenue to the State.  Therefore, it was not meant to be used by  trade rival  to  prolong  the rehabilitation.   The  BIFR  without unduly  prolonging the matter, should enquire  and  complete the proceeding keeping always the urgency at the back of its mind. 9.   Shri   Desai,  learned  senior  counsel  for   Garware, contended  that under SICA the BIFR has to  consider  either stand  alone  scheme  or merger scheme,  whichever  is  more feasible  to revive sick company, when change of  management was  found  to be not sufficient to  revive  Flowmore  (sick company).   Since AAL had submitted its revised proposal  on stand  alone  basis,  Garware had agreed to  assist  AAL  to rehabilitate  Flowmore  on  stand  alone  basis  when   BIFR initially  ordered  SRF to revive Flowmore  on  stand  alone basis it had no grievance but when it reviewed the order and directed  revival  by merger of Flowmore  with  SRF,  notice should  have been given by BIFR to the Garware and it  would have  been  heard before passing the  impugned  order  dated January 23, 1994.  The Appellate Authority committed equally the  same manifest error in that behalf.  He also  contended that  when a huge financial sacrifice was to be made and  an additional  benefits in the region of Rs.70 crores with  Rs. 10.  17 crores would accrue to SRF under s.70 to  s.72-A  of the  Income  Tax Act, notices to the Central  Government  as well  as Central Board of Direct Taxes were  mandatory.   An order of revival by merger 18 without notice to them is per-se illegal. 10. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the view that the contentions of  Sri Nariman   merit   acceptance.   The   first   question   for consideration  is  whether the proceedings before  the  BIFR should  be expeditiously disposed of?  The preamble of  SICA reads thus: -               "An  Act to make in public  interest,  special               provisions with a view to securing the  timely

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

             detection   of  sick  and   potentially   sick               companies owning industrial undertakings,  the               speedy determination by a Board of experts  of               the  preventive,  ameliorative,  remedial  and               other  measures  which need to be  taken  with               respect to such companies and the  expeditious               enforcement of the measures so determined  and               for matters connected therewith or  incidental               thereto.  " 11.  Under,s.17(1), the Board, after making inquiry, has  to decide, as soon as may be by order in writing, whether it is practicable for the company to make its networth exceed  the accumulated losses within a reasonable time.  Similarly,  s. 18(1)  envisages  for preparations of sanction  of  schemes. The Board while making the order under s. 17, the  operating agency  shall  prepare,  as expeditiously  as  possible  and ordinarily  within a period of ninety days from the date  of such  order,  a  scheme as per  the  particulars  enumerated thereunder.   Section 26 of the Act has  expressly  divested the civil ’court of its jurisdiction over the orders  passed by  the  Board or the Appellate Authority or  the  proposals made   under  the  Act.   The  legislative   intent   which, therefore,  becomes clear is that sick or  potentially  sick industry should be detected timely.  Proceedings for revival and  rehabilitation of the sick or potentially sick  company should expeditiously be completed within the time frame  and if  unavoidable, it should be done within a reasonable  time thereafter,  say six months.  The proceedings are not to  be allowed  to  be used as dilatory tactics  to  prevent  reha- bilitation of the sick company or potential sick company, in particular by rival companies.  The Board and the  Appellate Authority  and  the  High Court should give  effect  to  the provisions,  comply with procedural format, should  finalise the proceedings expeditiously within the time frame so  that not only the starving workmen who are kept in agonising wait for  revival of sick company without wages, be rescued,  but also needless accumulation of losses by the company and  the loss of revenue to the State is avoided. 12.  The  question then is whether Garware is an  interested person?   The SICA indicates that the Board has to devise  a scheme  for  rehabilitation of sick  industry  with  diverse steps.   Section 16 read with regulations 21 to 25  provides the  procedure for inquiry by BIFR to determine whether  the industry  became a sick company.  On recording  its  finding under  s. 1 7(1 ) read with regulation 26 that it  became  a sick  company,  the  Board  has  to  decide  whether  it  is practicable to make the networth of the sick company, exceed the accumulated losses within a reasonable time as envisaged in  s.17(1).  If  the  BIFR  decides  that  it  is  not   so practicable, then next step would be whether it is necessary or  expedient  in the public interest to adopt  any  of  the measures  specified  in s. 1 8 and to direct  any  operating agency to prepare a scheme as provided in sub-s.(3) of s. 18 as  per the provisions and R.B.I. guidelines and  the  Board has  been given power to review or modify such  order  after the  OA makes submission in that behalf as  envisaged  under s.18(1)and  (2) of SICA.  After its examination and  hearing all concerned as envisaged under s.18(3) and regulations  27 to  3 1, the Board would finalise it and direct  sanctioning the-scheme  and specify the date when the sanctioned  scheme shall come into force as enjoined under s. 18(4) of the Act. The regulations provide the procedure in that behalf.  It is seen,  as held earlier, that inquiry shall be completed  and concluded  as expeditiously as possible to revise  the  sick company or potential sick company.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

13.  The  question,  therefore,  is  whether  the  procedure Ldopted  by  the BIFR is vitiated by any error  of  law  and Garware is an interested person in reviving Flowmore.  It is seen that Garware and AAL had offered their schemes on stand alone  basis.  All through SRF had submitted its  scheme  of rehabilitation   by  merger  of  Flowmore  with  SRF.    The narration  of  facts  given  earlier  obviate  the  need  to reiterate them.  However, they make it obvious that  despite notices and opportunities given to Garware, time and  again, it did not chose to submit its revised scheme as directed by BIFR  before  OA.  Its consistent conduct in  not  appearing before  the  Board on different dates,  do  establish  that, after  rejection of its scheme initially submitted,  Garware evinced  no interest in the matter.  On the other  hand,  it had  entered  with  an  agreement with  AAL  to  extend  its technical  know-how assistance for revival of  Flowmore  for consideration  even though at every stage,  the  proceedings were  communicated  to  Garware.  Therefore, G  was  put  on notice  of  the  steps taken and the orders  passed  by  the Board.   Yet Garware evinced no interest in the  revival  of Flowmore  on  stand  alone basis or  any  other  alternative scheme.   Thereby  it is not a person interested.   For  its initial  interest evinced by Garware, it had  acquiesced  by its  conduct in the orders passed by the Board.  It is  true that  in the order dated April 23, 1993, the Board  declined to  approve  merger scheme of SRF on the  premise  that  SRF would gain undue advantage of the tax benefits under  s.72-A etc.  etc. and stand alone basis proposal was ordered to  be published.   But  when the mistake it had committed  in  the matter  was  brought to its notice, the Board  reviewed  its order  on  November 19, 1993, no doubt without  hearing  any party  and accepted the scheme for merger of  Flowmore  with SRF  and direction in that behalf was accordingly issued  to the  OA  for publication of scheme as draft  scheme.   Since Garware  had  acquiesced  in the order passed  and  had  not evinced any interest, only two persons that remained in  the field  were  AAL and SRF.  AAL also did  not  challenge  the order.   SRF  unquestionably  a ’healthy’  company  and  its capacity  to revise Flowmore was not in doubt.  All  through its scheme was for merger of Flowmore with SRF.   Therefore, no  fault can be found with the orders passed by  the  Board approving  the  scheme of the OA of the merger  of  Flowmore with  SRF  for  revival of Flowmore.   The  High  Court  was clearly in error in holding that though Garware stood by, it was not out and still an interested person and was  entitled to be heard before accepting the scheme of SRF for merger of Flowmore with SRF. 14.  It  is  true  that no notice was issued  by  the  Board either to the Central Government or to the Central Board  of Direct  Taxes.  He Central Government shall be  required  to pass an order under s.72-A of 20 tax benefits and that therefore it is entitled to be  heard. Since  merger scheme, which was given effect from  April  1, 1992, involves tax concessions and sacrifices enumerated  in ss.70,  71  and  72 as set off.  So, there  would  be  great revenue  losses.  Therefore, Central Government and  Central Board  of  Direct  Taxes are necessary  and  proper  parties before the Board.  The Board before finalising merger scheme and  approving  its  draft scheme for  merger  of  the  sick industrial company with a healthy company, notice should  be given  to the Central Government as well as to  the  Central Board  of Direct Taxes.  Admittedly by two letters  SRF  had given up the benefits under s.72-A. The counsel for the  SRF had  given an undertaking in the High Court  and  reiterated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

before this Court that the merger scheme would be  effective from  April 1, 1994.  Consequently, the benefits of set  off under   ss.70,  71  and  72  have  been  marginalised   and, therefore,  no considerable revenue loss would occur to  the public exchequer.  Any minor benefits would be consequential to  the offer of merger with the healthy company.  In  these appeals  and  before the High Court, they are  impleaded  as respondents  and  were heard through  Sri.   Ahuja,  learned senior  counsel, who has stated that there would be no  loss of revenue to the State and benefit under s. 43-B of  Income Tax Act is bound to be given to a company revived on  either basis.   In  that view, the order passed by  the  Board  and approved by the Appellate Authority are not vitiated by  any error of law warranting interference. 15.  The  appeal  filed by the shareholder  smacks  a  bone- fides.   After hearing him and others by  proceedings  dated December 6, 1991, the Board declared "Flowmore to be a  sick industrial company." As per the audited report for the  year ending  31.3.91, the accumulated losses stood at  Rs.1131.45 lakhs against the networth of Rs.764.80 lakhs comprising  of paid-up capital only, the company has suffered cash loss  of Rs.451.72  lakhs  and Rs.626.60 lakhs for the  years  ending 31.3.90  and  31.3.91,  respectively.  As  on  31.3.91,  the company owned Rs.2699.10 lakhs to the financial institutions and   the  banks  besides  other   contingent   liabilities. According  to Section 3(o), "sick industrial company"  means an  industrial  company being a company registered  for  not less  than five years which has at the end of any  financial year accumulated losses equal to or exceeding its entire net worth.   He had not challenged the order of  BIFR  declaring Flowmore  a  sick company by filing any proceedings  in  the High  Court.  Proceedings under s.16 were initiated  on  the basis  of the report by Board of Directors of  Flowmore  and its  audit report.  On the other hand, he stood by  and  has shown  only  a  facade of interest by  filing  appeal  as  a pretext  before  the Appellate Authority against  the  final order passed by the Board by which date Garware had  already initiated  writ proceedings.  The camouflage of interest  is torn apart from his conduct which would indicate that he  is only pretender to Garware who intends to see that  Flowmore, a trade rival, would not be revived so that he may  continue to have market monopoly in the field.  Therefore, he is only a  stooge  in the hands of Garware -and  his  special  leave application  directly  filed under Article 136  against  the orders  of the Appellate Authority deserves to be  dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/-. 16.    The appeals arc accordingly allowed.  The  orders  of the High Court are 21 set aside and those of the Appellate Authority and the Board are  confirmed  with costs quantified  as  Rs.20,000/-.  All costs  may  be deposited with the Supreme  Court  Legal  Aid Committee  within  four  weeks  and  in  default,  the  SCLA Committee would be entitled to recover the same as a  decree in its favour. 22