JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

Introduction

1. The petitioner had, pursuant to a public notice dated 27.03.2014, submitted its bid for purchase of a residential property described as "Duplex located at 10/B and 11/B, IL Palazzo CHS Ltd., 10th and 11th Floor, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai having a built-up area of 5100 sq. feet" (hereafter `the property'). The petitioner's bid for an aggregate amount of Rs.27.30 crores was accepted by the Asset Sale Committee (hereafter `the ASC') constituted in terms of the guidelines issued by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereafter `the BIFR') for sale of the non-productive assets of the respondent no.2 company (M/s Saurashtra Cement Ltd - hereafter `SCL').

2. The petitioner also made a part payment of a sum of Rs.10.37 crores albeit belatedly and in tranches. However, SCL (through ASC) terminated the contract for sale of the property in favour of the petitioner and forfeited the part payment made by the petitioner. The ASC then proceeded to sell the property to respondent no.4 (M/s Malabar Coastal Holdings LLP - hereafter `MCHL') at a price marginally higher than the bid by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner claims that the ASC had acted in a fraudulent manner with a view to favour MCHL. It had subverted a public sale by concluding a private transaction with MCHL. The unproductive assets of SCL (including the property) were directed to be sold by the BIFR for implementation of the scheme sanctioned under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereafter `the SICA'). The petitioner had, accordingly, sought recourse before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereafter `the AAIFR) as well as before the BIFR. However, all proceedings before the said authorities stood abated with the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 (hereafter `the Repeal Act') coming into force from 01.12.2016. The petitioner claims that the abatement of the proceedings has rendered the petitioner remediless. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner challenges the amendment of Section 4(b) of the Repeal Act as ultra vires the Constitution of India on the ground that the repeal of the SICA has left her remediless in respect of the grievance against the actions taken by the ASC.

4. The petitioner, accordingly, also prays that the abatement of the proceedings pending before the concerned authorities (MA No.45/2016 in Appeal No. 60/2015 pending before the AAIFR and MA Nos.541/2014, 470/2015 and 53/2016 in Case No.9/2006 pending before the BIFR) be declared as illegal.

5. In addition, the petitioner impugns a letter dated 20.02.2015 issued by the Secretary of the BIFR conveying the BIFR's consent for the ASC to proceed with the sale of the assets of SCL and all the steps taken by the ASC for sale of the assets of SCL pursuant to the said letter. The petitioner claims that the said letter was procured and was issued with the ulterior object to assist the ASC and MCHL (respondent no.4) in their fraudulent act, for cancelling the sale transaction of the petitioner and for selling the property to MCHL. Further, the petitioner also prays that directions be issued to respondent no.3 (Palazzo Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.) to issue its no objection certificate (hereafter `NOC') for sale of the property to the petitioner with further directions to SCL to conclude the sale of the property in favour of the petitioner. In the alternative, the petitioner also prays that the Repeal Act be declared as unconstitutional; the Government of India be directed to provide a remedy for adjudication of the subject disputes; and that the directions be issued to the respondents for refunding the amount of Rs.10,37,00,000/- (Rupees ten crores thirty-seven lacs), paid by the petitioner as a part consideration for the property.

6. The respondent disputes the allegations made by the petitioner. Respondent no.5 (hereafter `the IFCI') - whose