Minority secured creditor cannot veto a revival scheme under SICA; rehabilitation may proceed with financial concessions despite dissent.

Section 19(4) of SICA is to be read harmoniously with section 18 so that a revival scheme may include financial assistance and concessions even where one secured creditor withholds consent. The expression "one or more" in section 18 supports rehabilitation through combined measures, and section 18(3)(b) permits consideration of objections without conferring a veto on a minority creditor. The statutory objective of revival, protection of employment and avoidance of winding up would be undermined if one dissenting creditor could block the scheme. The Delhi HC therefore sustained the rehabilitation orders and rejected the writ challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 19(4) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 permits the Board to sanction a revival scheme involving financial assistance and concessions even if one secured creditor withholds consent, and whether such dissent prevents the adoption of measures for rehabilitation under section 18.

Analysis: The scheme of SICA requires section 19(4) to be read harmoniously with section 18 and the object of the Act. The expression "one or more" in section 18 indicates that revival may proceed through a combination of measures, including financial concessions, and the Board is not confined to measures excluding financial assistance merely because one secured creditor dissents. Section 18(3)(b) contemplates modification of the draft scheme in light of objections, but not a veto by a minority creditor. The legislative purpose of revival and rehabilitation, protection of employment, and avoidance of winding up as a last resort would be defeated if a single creditor could block a sanctioned scheme. The subsequent amendment providing for abatement only when secured creditors representing not less than three-fourths in value act reinforces the view that minority dissent cannot frustrate rehabilitation.

Conclusion: Section 19(4) does not give a minority secured creditor a veto over a rehabilitation scheme; the Board may sanction a revival scheme with financial concessions notwithstanding non-consent by one creditor, and the challenge fails.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected and the orders of the rehabilitation authorities were sustained, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 19(4) of SICA must be construed harmoniously with section 18 so that a minority secured creditor cannot defeat a revival scheme supported by the statutory process and the Act's object of rehabilitation.

---