2005 (7) TMI 698 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order under the Securitisation Act.
2. Writ of mandamus to halt proceedings until appeal is entertained and disposed of.
3. Interpretation of the second proviso of section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act.
4. Applicability of the second proviso when a reference is pending before different authorities.
5. Whether an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings.
6. Determining the interpretation that furthers the objective of speedy debt recovery.
7. Consideration of secured creditors' decision to take action under the Securitisation Act.
8. Right to file an appeal under section 17 of the Securitisation Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerned two writ petitions: one seeking to quash an order under the Securitisation Act and the other to halt proceedings until an appeal is entertained and disposed of. The court had previously dismissed similar petitions in a related case.

2. The petitioner relied on section 41 of the Securitisation Act and the second proviso of section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act. The court examined whether the second proviso applies when a reference is pending before different authorities, concluding that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings.

3. The petitioner argued that the second proviso only applies when a reference is pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, not before the Appellate Authority. The court disagreed, emphasizing that an appeal is part of the original proceedings and implied intentions can be considered.

4. Considering the objective of the Securitisation Act for speedy debt recovery, the court interpreted the provisions to further this goal. It noted that more than three-fourth of the secured creditors had consented to take action under the Act, constituting a measure to recover the debt.

5. Consequently, the petitioner was granted the right to file an appeal under section 17 of the Securitisation Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, allowing the presentation of legal and factual arguments. Both writ petitions were dismissed, with no costs imposed. Additionally, connected motions were also dismissed.