1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition raises an interesting and important question with regard to interpretation of Section 19, more particularly Section 19(4) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act? or „SICA?). The proposition which is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is that even if one of the secured creditors refuses to give consent to a scheme which provides for financial assistance to a sick company, then, a sanctioned scheme has necessarily to be framed by resorting to other measures as specified under Section 18 without allowing the company the benefit of financial assistance as envisaged under Section 19(1) of the Act. Putting it differently, it is contended that though majority of the secured creditors agree for financial assistance in the form of concessions to be granted to a sick industrial company for the purpose of revival and rehabilitation of the sick company, yet, such majority secured creditors can be overridden by a minority secured creditor who refuses to give consent to a scheme which involves financial assistance in the form of concessions and reduction of the