https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194903 The court interpreted the 2nd proviso to Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, requiring a minimum of 75% of secured assets to be purchased by securitization or asset reconstruction companies for the proviso to apply. The court emphasized a purposive interpretation to align with legislative intent and prevent frustration in the revival of sick industrial companies. The writ petition was dismissed, emphasizing the need for coherence in applying statutory provisions. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. en-us Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Oct 2017 15:02:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194903 The court interpreted the 2nd proviso to Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, requiring a minimum of 75% of secured assets to be purchased by securitization or asset reconstruction companies for the proviso to apply. The court emphasized a purposive interpretation to align with legislative intent and prevent frustration in the revival of sick industrial companies. The writ petition was dismissed, emphasizing the need for coherence in applying statutory provisions. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194903