Statutory stay under sick industry law prevails over winding-up conditions; landlord possession could not be granted indirectly.

Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act imposed a statutory bar during the protected period, and the High Court held that possession of the premises could not be granted to the landlord because that would indirectly defeat the stay on winding-up proceedings. The non obstante clause in section 22(1) prevailed over section 443 of the Companies Act, so the power to adjourn or regulate winding-up proceedings on conditions could not be used to override the special statutory protection. The application for possession or for conditional modification of the stay was therefore not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, during the operation of the stay under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the court could grant the landlord possession of the premises or otherwise use section 443 of the Companies Act, 1956 to impose a condition in the winding-up proceedings.

Analysis: Section 22(1) created a clear statutory bar against proceeding with the winding-up matter during the period covered by the Act. The request for delivery of possession to the landlord would have the effect of conferring control of the premises during the pendency of the company petition, which would indirectly achieve what the statute prohibited directly. The non obstante clause in section 22(1) prevailed over section 443 of the Companies Act, 1956, so the power to adjourn the winding-up petition on conditions could not be used to override the protection created by the special statute.

Conclusion: The application for possession or conditional modification of the stay was not maintainable and was rejected, in favour of the respondent.

---