Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2010 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (5) TMI 382 - HIGH COURT OF DELHIInterpretation of section 19(4) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 consent is refused by one of the secured creditors, then the Board (BIFR) is thrown to section 19(4), however, as already discussed above section 19(4) allows various alternatives to BIFR to adopt ‘one or more’ measures as per section 18(1) and section 18(3)(b) of the Act. The last line of the above para of Ashok Organic Industries Ltd.’s case (2008 (1) TMI 617 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) only deals with the issue of minority dissenting creditors being not overridden and which can take place while approving a scheme strictly in accordance with sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, but, this cannot have a bearing on the interpretation of section 19(4) when dealt with in the context of options available to BIFR when a minority secured creditor opposes a draft scheme. As already stated above in such circumstances various options under SICA including those mentioned in section 18 can then be resorted to and Board is not limited to superseding a scheme of revival merely because of the objection of one minority secured creditor. We dismiss the petition challenging the impugned orders of BIFR and AAIFR.
|