AIR 2010 DELHI 142 ::2010 CLC 1266 (DEL) ::(2010) 99 CorLA 197

Delhi High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. K. Kaul, Valmiki J. Mehta , JJ

(A) Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986) , S.15(1), Third Proviso, S.18, S.19(4)— Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (54 of 2002) , S.41— Draft Rehabilitation @page-Del143Scheme - Envisaging reduction in dues payable by sick company to its secured creditors - Single creditor cannot prevent BIFR in bringing about scheme - Expression "one or more measures" as found in S.18 of Act - Includes all measures including financial concessions. A plain reading of third proviso added to S. 15(1) of Sic A shows that the consent of at least 3/4th of the secured creditors is necessary for the proceedings before BIFR to abate. This proviso further brings into focus the legislative intent that a minority creditor cannot frustrate the proceedings before BIFR for rehabilitation and revival of the sick industrial company. The Legislature has thougrt it fit that at least 75% of the secured creditors must join hands to bring about an abatement to the proceedings before BIFR. If that be so, it cannot be understood as to how one secured creditor can in fact bring about an abatement of the proceedings before BIFR because giving of financial concessions by reducing the dues payable by a sick industrial company is always the heart and basic structure of any scheme for revival and rehab....