https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242749 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. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:02:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242749 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242749