BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL & FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION, NEW DELHI 

KAPIL SHARMA and C. L. SAREEN, Advocates, with N. N. MATHUR, for the appellant. 

V. U. ERADI, Advocate, with PAWAN SHARMA, Goyal M. G. Cases Ltd., for the respondents (Caveator). 

ORDER 

This is an appeal against BIFR's order, dated 10.8.1999 in Case No. 69 of 1998 dismissing the appellant company's reference under section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). 

2. The order was issued by BIFR under their letter dated 19.8.1999. This appeal was filed on 17.11.1999. The appellant's case is that it did not receive the copy of the order by post, that it applied for certified copy on 26.10.1999 and got it on 27.10.1999. The counsel for the appellant company was present before BIFR at the hearing on 10.8.1999. It is seen from the list of addresses that a copy of the impugned order was addressed to the appellant at the same address which is given by the appellant in the cause title of the memorandum of this appeal. In any case, the appellant knew that there is BIFR's order, dated 10.8.99 because the appellant was present through counsel on that day. The application for a copy was made 76 days after the date of hearing before BIFR. Even if we count the period from the date of the issue of the order, i.e., 19.8.99, the application for certified copy was made to BIFR after 67 days. Even after getting the certified copy on 27.10.99, the appellant took another 20 days to file the appeal. The appeal is time barred. 

3. Even on merit, this appeal cannot be entertained. The reference was made by the appellant company on the basis of its accounts for 18 months ended on 30.9.97. It is seen from Form 'A' in which the reference was made by the appellant company, that its net worth, as defined in section 3(1)(g)(a) of SICA, was Rs. 94.80 crore as on 30.9.97 (Rs. 96.49 crore as on 31.3.96). As on 31.3.96, the appellant company a no accumulated losses. Accumulated losses of Rs. 109.63 crore have been shown as on 30.9.97 against the sale proceeds of Rs. 69.34 crore during that year (items 6 and 28 of Form 'A'). When the reference was heard by BIFR on 4.5.98, the secured creditors had raised serious objections to the appellant company's accounts, showing total erosion of its net worth during the year 1996-97. BIFR appointed IDBI as the operating agency under section 16(2) of SICA. For one reason or the other, even though IDBI appointed chartered accountant for the purposes of audit, the audit could not be completed and IDBI (OA) could not consequently submit its report under section 16(2) to BIFR. In the impugned order, BIFR has dealt at length with the noncooperative attitude of the appellant company in the matter of conduct of audit by the auditors appointed by the IDBI (OA). The learned counsel has shown a lot of correspondence to urge that the appellant company was always willing to cooperate; but the delay took place on the part of the IDBI (OA) and the auditors, but we are not convinced. It is seen from the appellant company's own letter, dated 9.4.99 to IDBI (OA) that they still sought 4 to 6 weeks time for submitting the information required for the audit. That period expired by the information was not submitted. Even today, the learned counsel for the appellant company and the Vice-President (Finance) of the company who is also present, are unable to give us any explanation for the losses of Rs. 109.63 crore booked in the accounts for the year 30.9.97. Therefore, the information given in Form 'A' by the appellant company to the BIFR cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determining whether the appellant company had become a sick industrial company as on 30.9.97. 

4. The appeal is dismissed.