As per case facts, Jaipur Udyog Ltd. (JUL) was declared a sick industry, and a rehabilitation scheme submitted by Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. (GDCL) was sanctioned but failed. BIFR ... recommended winding up JUL, but appeals followed. Later, SICA was repealed, and proceedings abated as no application was made to NCLT, reviving the winding-up recommendation. GDCL, despite lacking clear legal authority, engaged in transactions, including selling JUL's assets and its subsidiary's shares, without court permission, while workmen's dues remained largely unpaid. The question arose whether GDCL's actions in dealing with JUL's and its subsidiary JAIL's assets were lawful after the abatement of rehabilitation proceedings and whether proposals for unit revival or asset sale should be accepted without proper valuation. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that GDCL had no locus to deal with the assets post-abatement of proceedings, declared new share allotments illegal, and rejected the invocation of Article 142 to condone illegalities. The Court set aside the sale of scrap, directed the identification and payment of all workmen's dues with interest, and appointed a Court Administrator to manage the remaining assets, oversee valuations, and ensure compliance. The writ petition was disposed of, with pending applications also rejected.