Hence, the bench said it would not interefere, at this stage, on the prayer of VIL to invest Rs 7.5 crore in equity in BDDL nor to appoint two directors of VIL in the board of directors of the sick company.

The board said, "It is incumbent on each and every party to comply on its accord all the obligations cast on them in terms of sanctioned scheme i.e., Where any party (in this case VIL) was indicated to take equity should have brought the funds without waiting for any letter, intimation or demandfrom UCPTL or BPL etc." Endorsing BPL's stand that it was not obligatory on its part to remind VIL to play its role as laid down in the sanctioned scheme, the board said the scheme did not cast any specific duty or responsibility on the company (BDDL) or BPL or any other party to be the instrument for ensuring follow up of such subscription or demand or allotment.

Though VIL has now denied that it is considering any kind of strategic tie-up with BPL in formulating a revival package for the sick BDDL, it pleaded for just the opposite in a review hearing of bifr recently.

Vil had expressed to have a share along with BPL (which was pumping in Rs 19.34 crore in equity) for the revival of the sick company by investing Rs 7.5 crore and inducting two of its nominees as directors on the board of BDDL. At the hearing, VIL even showed an agreement dated November 11, 1994 between the chairmen of VIL and BPL to jointly revive the sick company.