The case involves a challenge to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 (Repeal Act). The petitioner, Ashapura Minechem Ltd., had initially challenged the entire Repeal Act but later restricted its challenge to Section 4(b) and Section 5(1)(d), arguing they violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a company engaged in mining, processing, sale, and export of minerals. Prior to the Repeal Act, the petitioner had made a reference to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and was declared a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SIC Act). A draft rehabilitation scheme was pending when the Repeal Act came into
…Ashapura Minechem Ltd., the petitioner, is a company involved in mining, processing, and exporting minerals. Prior to the enactment of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 (Repeal Act), Ashapura Minechem Ltd. had been declared a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SIC Act) and had a draft rehabilitation scheme pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The Repeal Act repealed the SIC Act and abated all proceedings pending before the BIFR. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 4(b) and Section 5(1)(d) of the Repeal Act, arguing that these provisions unfairly discriminate between sick companies with sanctioned schemes under the SIC Act
…Sign in to view the parties.
The petitioner company made a reference…
The BIFR declared the petitioner company to be a…
The case involves a challenge to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 (Repeal Act). The petitioner, Ashapura Minechem Ltd., had initially challenged the entire Repeal Act but later restricted its challenge to Section 4(b) and Section 5(1)(d), arguing they violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a company engaged in mining, processing, sale, and export of minerals. Prior to the Repeal Act, the petitioner had made a reference to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and was declared a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SIC Act). A draft rehabilitation scheme was pending when the Repeal Act came into
…Ashapura Minechem Ltd., the petitioner, is a company involved in mining, processing, and exporting minerals. Prior to the enactment of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 (Repeal Act), Ashapura Minechem Ltd. had been declared a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SIC Act) and had a draft rehabilitation scheme pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The Repeal Act repealed the SIC Act and abated all proceedings pending before the BIFR. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 4(b) and Section 5(1)(d) of the Repeal Act, arguing that these provisions unfairly discriminate between sick companies with sanctioned schemes under the SIC Act
…The petitioner company made a reference…
The BIFR declared the petitioner company to be a…