The government, while countering Dunlop's plea, said the company was using `a delaying tactic' and the board should not pay any heed to it.

The next hearing has been fixed for December 3.

Pleading before the board's principal bench, Dunlop India counsel Ganeshan asked the bench to grant the management about four months to "put the company back on its feet." He felt the bench should take a view on the petition after six months.

The Dunlop counsel stated that the management was "doing everything it can at this juncture to revive the company." Reiterating his earlier position, Ganeshan said appointment of two or more government nominees on the company board will not add any value.

Instead, such appointments will put the company in a more difficult situation, the Dunlop counsel argued. Elaborating, he said once the government directors are appointed, Dunlop would be labeled as a section 408 company and the current board of directors would lose its credibility.

Ganeshan further felt an order at this stage could affect the pending rights issue through which Jumbo Holdings had been planned to infuse fresh funds into the company.

Government counsel HS Phoolka, in contrast, felt that the government directors would be in position to instill confidence in the financial institutions. "It will enhance the public image of the company."

In addition, they would be able to strike an agreement with the workers of the company on payment of pending wages and ensure that the two factories which have been closed are made operational.

Phoolka pointed out that Dunlop was a profitable concern when it was taken over by the Chhabrias. Over the past 14 years, the company's performance has been deteriorating. Attacking the Dunlop plea for more time, Phoolka wondered what could the management achieve in the next six months to turnaround the company. "They are just buying time."

The Dunlop counsel earlier had stated the Chhabria group had a good track record of turning-around sick companies. Reeling out details, Ganeshan said, the group had in the past revived companies such as Falcon Tyres and Calcutta Chemicals.

He asserted that the directors on the board are not tainted as they had been appointed in 1997. Besides, it is up to the CLB to decide whether this board should be trusted, he added.

Ganeshan further pointed that the Board for Financial & Industrial Reconstruction (BIFR) was yet to take a view on the revival of Dunlop and therefore the board should hold its order in abeyance. The case is now pending before appellate authority for industrial and financial reconstruction.