Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. In supporting the above construction of Section 13(4), the petitioner bank has also relied upon the following judgment of the Madras High Court, delivered in Writ Petition (C) No. 32594/2003 and 4481 of 2005, dated 19th July 2005, titled as Triveni Alloys Ltd. v. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Ors. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the intention of the Parliament is that the second proviso to Section 15 (1) applies only when a reference is pending before the BIFR and not before the Appellate Authority and hence only BIFR is mentioned therein. As already stated above, appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and very often something which is not mentioned can be implied by necessary implication. Moreover, the very purpose of the Securitization Act is for speedy recovery of dues against defaulting borrowers and hence we should take an interpretation which furthers that object.
7. There is no dispute that more than three fourth of the secured creditors resolved to take action under the Securitization Act and gave their consent for that purpose. In our opinion, once a decision has been taken by the secured creditors representing not less than three fourth in value of the amount outstanding and consent has been given, it will amount to a measure taken to recover the secured debt under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act.

In our view, while agreeing with the conclusion in the above judgment, with respect we are not entirely in agreement with the judgment of the Madras High Court. In our view, a mere decision in the meeting of the secured creditors representing three fourth in value of the amount outstanding may not amount to a measure taken to recover a secured debt under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act and something more concrete has to be done by the secured creditors. In any event, the above judgment arose from the plea whether the second proviso to Section 15 (1) applies before the Appellate Authority and not only BIFR and this provision has also been rightly construed by the Madras High Court to hold that appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. It is evident that the bar of Section 15 second proviso applies to not only original proceedings but also to the appeal emanating therefrom and the bar stipulated by the 2nd proviso to Section 15 SICA applies not only to the BIFR but also the AAIFR.

19. In support of such contention learned Counsel relied on amendment to Securitization Act under Section 41 thereof to certain enactments, and one of such enactment is SICA. Such amendments have been given in the Schedule to Section 41 of SICA. From a perusal of the said Schedule it appears that to Section 15 of SICA the following amendments have been introduced in Section 41 of the Securitization Act. The said amendment is as follows:
In Section 15, in Sub section (1), after the proviso, insert the following:
Relying on the proviso to the said amendment, learned Counsel submitted that in the instant case since the notice under Section 13 (4) of the Securitiziation Act has been issued reference before BIFR has abated.
20. This Court is unable to appreciate the aforesaid contention. The proviso makes it very clear that same will come into force where a reference is pending before the BIFR. Such reference will abate if the secured creditors representing not less than three fourths in value of the amount outstanding against financial assistance disbursed to the borrower, have taken any measures to recover their secured debt under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitization Act.