Pending industrial reference abates automatically when secured creditors take enforcement measures; writ jurisdiction remains open for jurisdictional challenge.

Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable where the challenge alleged lack of jurisdiction in invoking securitisation measures, so the petitions were not rejected on the ground of alternative statutory remedy. The Court further held that a reference under the sick company regime remains pending through proceedings under Sections 16 to 19, and it abates automatically when secured creditors representing not less than three-fourths in value take measures under Section 13(4), without any formal abatement order. Once that statutory threshold is met, Section 22 protection does not survive, and no prior permission is required for action under the securitisation law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions should be declined on the ground of availability of the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the reference pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction abated on the secured creditors taking measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (iii) Whether the expression "reference is pending" in the third proviso to Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 includes a reference already registered and carried forward through proceedings under Sections 16, 17, 18 and 19 of that Act. (iv) Whether the secured creditors could proceed under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 without seeking permission under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions should be declined on the ground of availability of the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the action challenged is said to be without jurisdiction. Since the petitions questioned the bank's jurisdiction to invoke Section 13(4), the Court examined the matter on merits rather than rejecting the petitions at the threshold.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the reference pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction abated on the secured creditors taking measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The third proviso to Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 provides that a pending reference abates when secured creditors representing not less than three-fourths in value take measures under Section 13(4). The Court held that abatement is automatic and does not require a formal order from the Board. The reference continues to remain pending until finally terminated, whether it is at the stage of Section 15 or at later stages under Sections 16 to 19.

Conclusion: The reference abated on the bank taking measures under Section 13(4).

Issue (iii): Whether the expression "reference is pending" in the third proviso to Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 includes a reference already registered and carried forward through proceedings under Sections 16, 17, 18 and 19 of that Act.

Analysis: The Court treated the reference as a continuing proceeding and held that registration of the reference or declaration of sickness does not the reference. Proceedings under Sections 16 to 19 are part of the same reference and remain within the meaning of a pending reference for the third proviso.

Conclusion: The expression "reference is pending" includes the reference at all those stages.

Issue (iv): Whether the secured creditors could proceed under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 without seeking permission under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The Court held that once the statutory threshold under the third proviso to Section 15 is met, the secured creditors are entitled to invoke Section 13(4) notwithstanding Section 22. The protection under Section 22 does not survive after abatement of the reference by operation of the third proviso.

Conclusion: The secured creditors could validly proceed under Section 13(4) and no permission under Section 22 was required.

Final Conclusion: The bank's measures under the securitisation law were upheld, the BIFR reference was held to have abated, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction continues to remain pending at every stage under the sick company regime, and it automatically abates when secured creditors representing not less than three-fourths in value take measures under Section 13(4) of the securitisation law, without any need for a formal abatement order or prior permission under Section 22.

---