BIFR reference abatement requires actual Section 13(4) action by three-fourths secured creditors; consent alone is insufficient.

Abatement of a pending BIFR reference under the third proviso to Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 arises only when secured creditors representing not less than three-fourths in value have actually taken measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Consent under Section 13(9) is a different requirement and does not by itself trigger abatement. Read harmoniously, the provisions mean that where the requisite Section 13(4) action has not been taken by the statutory threshold of secured creditors, the BIFR reference continues and the protection under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act remains in force.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction abates under the third proviso to Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 when consent under Section 13(9) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is obtained, but secured creditors representing not less than three-fourths in value have not taken measures under Section 13(4) of that Act.

Analysis: The third proviso to Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 makes abatement dependent on secured creditors representing not less than three-fourths in value having taken measures to recover secured debt under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Section 13(9) operates in a different situation and concerns the consent required for one secured creditor to exercise rights under Section 13(4) after the requisite threshold has already acted. The two provisions were required to be read harmoniously. Since the other secured creditors had not taken measures under Section 13(4), and the aggregate share of the creditors who had consented did not satisfy the statutory threshold, the BIFR reference did not abate. In such circumstances, the consent under Section 13(9) did not by itself trigger abatement, and the protection under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 continued to apply.

Conclusion: The reference before the BIFR did not abate, and the action taken under the securitisation proceedings could not be sustained on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Abatement under the third proviso to Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 arises only when secured creditors representing not less than three-fourths in value have actually taken measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; consent under Section 13(9) alone is insufficient.

---