<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (2) TMI 132 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271427</link>
    <description>The later special statute for securitisation was treated as overriding the earlier sick-industrial-companies law to the extent of inconsistency, because it gives secured creditors a direct enforcement right and contains an overriding clause. The stay in writ proceedings did not revive a reference already concluded before the Board and Appellate Authority, and recovery under Section 13 of the securitisation law was not obstructed. The expression &quot;where a reference is pending&quot; in the third proviso to Section 15(1) was read broadly to cover the entire BIFR process, including inquiry, scheme consideration, sanction, implementation, and final conclusion. Once secured creditors representing not less than three-fourth in value acted under Section 13(4), the sick-industrial reference abated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 17:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 132 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271427</link>
      <description>The later special statute for securitisation was treated as overriding the earlier sick-industrial-companies law to the extent of inconsistency, because it gives secured creditors a direct enforcement right and contains an overriding clause. The stay in writ proceedings did not revive a reference already concluded before the Board and Appellate Authority, and recovery under Section 13 of the securitisation law was not obstructed. The expression &quot;where a reference is pending&quot; in the third proviso to Section 15(1) was read broadly to cover the entire BIFR process, including inquiry, scheme consideration, sanction, implementation, and final conclusion. Once secured creditors representing not less than three-fourth in value acted under Section 13(4), the sick-industrial reference abated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>