Writ interference with BIFR rehabilitation assessment is limited absent jurisdictional error or legal infirmity.

In writ jurisdiction, the court will not reappreciate BIFR's assessment of a rehabilitation proposal or interfere with its reasoned view on viability and secured creditors' interests unless a jurisdictional or legal infirmity is shown. The revised proposal submitted by the company had been considered and was found broadly similar to an earlier proposal that had not found favour with secured creditors. As consent from secured creditors had not been obtained, BIFR was entitled to proceed as it did. No infirmity in the impugned directions or jurisdictional error was established, and the writ challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction with the BIFR order directing issuance of advertisements for rehabilitation proposals and permitting secured creditors to proceed subject to approval, and whether the petitioner's revised rehabilitation proposal had been ignored.

Analysis: The writ court was not exercising original jurisdiction under the special statute nor sitting in appeal over the BIFR. The record showed that the revised proposal submitted by the company had in fact been considered by the BIFR and found to be broadly similar to an earlier proposal that had not found favour with the secured creditors. The BIFR was entitled to assess the viability of the proposal and to give due weight to the interests of secured creditors, whose consent had not been obtained. In these circumstances, no infirmity in the impugned directions or jurisdictional error was established.

Conclusion: The challenge to the BIFR order failed, and the writ petition was rightly dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ proceedings, the court will not reappreciate the merits of a rehabilitation proposal considered by BIFR or interfere with its reasoned assessment of viability and creditor interests unless a jurisdictional or legal infirmity is shown.

---