Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the second proviso to Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies only when an asset reconstruction company or securitisation company has acquired at least 75% of the secured financial assets of a sick industrial company, or whether any acquisition, however small, is sufficient.
Analysis: The text of the second proviso does not expressly prescribe a minimum percentage of financial assets to be acquired. However, the proviso was read with the third proviso to Section 15(1), which uses a 75% threshold for abatement when secured creditors take measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. A literal construction of the second proviso would allow even a minuscule acquisition to defeat a reference under SICA, which would be inconsistent with the scheme of revival and rehabilitation under SICA and would create an absurd and unworkable result. The Court applied purposive interpretation and harmonious construction, holding that the legislative intent required the second proviso to operate only where the asset reconstruction company or securitisation company acquires at least 75% of the secured assets.
Conclusion: The second proviso to Section 15(1) of SICA is attracted only when at least 75% of the secured assets of the sick industrial company have been acquired by an asset reconstruction company or securitisation company.