The petitioner is said to have occupied the premises of respondents no.2 to 5, in order to commence operations and enable the process of revival, during July, 2003. However, KSFC, which is said to have assured the finalization of the OTS within 4 weeks from the date of deposit of the 5% of the total outstanding dues, is said to have taken two years. It is stated that the insistence on the part of KSFC in linking the OTS value to the outstanding loan dues of respondents no.2 to 5 rather than the value of assets, was said to be the cause of delay. This delay is said to have completely derailed the revival plan. In that, the banker of respondent no.2 , is said to have frozen the working capital account. The Department of Customs is said to have detained 10 machines of Respondent no.2, imported under the EPCG Scheme. The petitioner company therefore sought to withdraw the deposit made, as the revival plan was a non-starter. It is stated that KSFC, on the other hand, proposed that the OTS may not be scuttled and offered to sell the entire assets of respondents no.2 to 5 to the petitioner. PPL is said to have offered
