https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114065 A secured creditor could invoke measures under the securitisation law during pending BIFR proceedings, because the proviso to the sick industrial companies framework permitted action under section 13(4) and the creditor's appointment as operating agency did not extinguish that right. The Court also found no mala fides on that basis alone. The writ petition was not maintainable because effective statutory remedies were available under both enactments, and writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass them absent a jurisdictional defect or other compelling reason. The dismissal of the writ petition was therefore upheld, along with the declaration that the BIFR proceedings had abated. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2026 14:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114065 A secured creditor could invoke measures under the securitisation law during pending BIFR proceedings, because the proviso to the sick industrial companies framework permitted action under section 13(4) and the creditor's appointment as operating agency did not extinguish that right. The Court also found no mala fides on that basis alone. The writ petition was not maintainable because effective statutory remedies were available under both enactments, and writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass them absent a jurisdictional defect or other compelling reason. The dismissal of the writ petition was therefore upheld, along with the declaration that the BIFR proceedings had abated. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114065