RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. –

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act’) and the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘S.I.C.A.’) for the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Authority for the Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short ‘A.A.I.F.R.’) in Appeal No. 75 of 2010 and also the order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short ‘B.I.F.R.’) in Case No. 73 of 2006 dated 30-3-2008. Interim relief against taking any coercive steps with regard to the properties of the petitioner-Company and its promoters is also prayed.

2. The above prayers have been made on the grounds set out in detail in the Memo of Petition, inter alia, that the impugned order is passed by A.A.LF.R. on erroneous interpretation of the provisions of S.I.C.A. and S.A.R.F.A:E.S.I. Act. It is contended that the view taken by the A.A.I.F.R. that the provisions of S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act will override the provisions of S.LC.A. since the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act is a later enactment is erroneous in view of the provisions of Sec. 37 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act. It is also contended that the provisions of S.I.C.A. involves larger dominant public interest and the same will prevail over the provisions of S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act. It is also contended that though Sec. 35 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act gives an overriding effect to the provisions of S.I.C.A. Section 37 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act makes it expressly clear that the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time-being in force, and therefore, it has been contended that the third proviso to Sec. 15 of S.I.C.A. providing for Reference to the B.I.F.R. shall abate if the secured creditors representing not less than 3/4th in value of the amount outstanding against a financial assistance will have the application under Sec. 13(4) of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act and it cannot be read in isolation overlooking the provisions of Sec. 22(1) of S.I.C.A. read with Sec. 37 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I Act. It is specifically contended that considering the scheme• of both the Acts, A.A.I.F.R. has failed to appreciate that once action is taken under Sec. 13(4) of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, it will jeopardize the possibility of reviving the company which has filed a Reference before the B.I.F.R., which in turn has bearing on employment to the employees and the revival of the company. Therefore, it is contended that if the interpretation which is adopted by A.A.I.F.R. giving an overriding effect to Sec. 13(4) of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act is accepted, it will frustrate the provisions of S.I.C.A. It is also contended that the impugned order passed by A.A.I.F.R. holding that the Reference before the B.I.F.R. has been abated solely on the basis of the application of the Union Bank of India which has taken possession of the office premises belonging to the petitioner-Company has failed to appreciate that it would frustrate the rights of the petitioner-Company available to it under S.I.C.A.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. K. M. Patel appearing with learned Advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth for the petitioner-Company referred to the impugned order passed by the A.A.I.F.R. and submitted that an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of two different statues, which are also special statutes, is required to be considered. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Patel submitted that the moot question which is required to be considered is whether the Reference can stand abated in view of the provisions of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, when the possession of the en