2007 (10) TMI 409

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le Judge by which his Lordship dismissed the writ-application filed by the appellants in which they basically challenged the order dated 18 December, 2006, passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the 'BIFR') in Case No. 230 of 2004 recording that the said case had abated in terms of section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the SICA) and further challenged the action on the part of the respondent/secured creditors in taking action in terms of section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Securitisation Act'). 2. There is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id order passed by the BIFR and the consequential steps taken by the secured creditors in terms of section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. 6. The learned Single Judge by the order impugned herein has dismissed such application holding that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the BIFR or the secured creditors. 6.1 Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioners have come up with the present mandamus appeal. 7. Mr. Mallick, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants strenuously contended before us that the action of the secured creditors in taking steps in terms of section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act was a mala fide exercise of power only with the oblique motive of making the proceeding before the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the right of the secured creditor to invoke section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act by adding proviso in section 15 of the SICA and thus, their clients did not commit any illegality in availing of such benefit conferred by the legislature. They further contend that the writ application was otherwise not maintainable in view of the fact that an appeal lies against the order of the BIFR dated 18 December, 2006, in terms of section 25 of the SICA while the appellants can also approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal if dissatisfied with the decision of the secured creditor in proceeding under section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act as provided in section 17 of the Securitisation Act. They further point out that the sole object of the appellants w....