MUMBAI, Feb. 26 -- The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to halt the winding up of Swadeshi Mills Company Ltd, rejecting a revival proposal by Grand View Estates Pvt Ltd -a Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group company - and holding that the plan was aimed not at restarting the textile business but at exploiting the company's prime 48-acre land parcel in Chunabhatti for real estate gains. A single-judge bench of justice Sharmila U Deshmukh said the proposal was a "backdoor attempt" to take control of the valuable land and reap redevelopment benefits, rather than a genuine effort to revive the defunct mill for the benefit of its stakeholders. "The facts would reveal that the present application is nothing but a ruse to obtain valuable land for exploitation in the real estate market," the court observed. Swadeshi Mills, founded by Jamsetji Tata in 1890 to contest against the British goods, has been in liquidation for over two decades. In 1997, Ralli Brothers and Coney moved the high court seeking its winding up. After the company's net worth turned negative in February 1998, a statutory reference was made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), which declared it a sick company and, on February 5, 2001, recommended winding up. In February 2002, a Court Receiver was appointed. The company's remaining stock, plant and machinery, and certain immovable assets were sold to clear workers' dues. In September 2005, the high court formally ordered the mill to be wound up. Grand View Estates, along with its sister concern Forbes and Company Ltd, holds over 52% stake in Swadeshi Mills. Last year, it approached the court with a fresh proposal seeking revival of the textile mill and a stay on liquidation. Under the proposal, the company offered to pay Rs.237 crore towards workers' dues, over Rs.10 crore towards other liabilities, Rs.5.45 crore to certain unsecured creditors. It also proposed deferring its own dues, approximately Rs.1,100.81 crore payable to Grand View Estates and Forbes, to mutually agreed future dates. The company argued that revival of textile operations was technically unviable, citing a feasibility report, and claimed that the proposal had the support of stakeholders and the recognised labour union. It contended that the plan served larger public and economic objectives. Two shareholders opposed the plea, pointing out that a similar revival scheme had been rejected in 2022 by a division bench of the high court, which had then held that the plan appeared to be a means to acquire the company's prime land at a throwaway price. They argued there had been no change in circumstances to justify a fresh proposal. Justice Deshmukh agreed. She noted that the land, located in the heart of the city in a prime residential and commercial zone, would "command astronomical prices" given its redevelopment potential. "The manner in which the applicant has attempted to lay its hands on this valuable property of the company in liquidation leaves much to be desired," the court said. Calling the revival plan neither "credible" nor "comprehensive", the court held that there was no justification to stay the winding up proceedings. It added that the official liquidator was still in the process of valuing the property and that no public auction had yet been attempted, leaving open the possibility of value maximisation through such a process....