Section 22 protection under SICA does not revive disposed proceedings or bar landlord eviction actions against a sick company tenant.

Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act applies only while a statutory inquiry, scheme, implementation process, or pending appeal remains alive; a mere interim stay of an appellate order does not revive disposed proceedings or create a pending proceeding. On that basis, the protective bar was not attracted. The provision also does not automatically suspend landlord-initiated eviction proceedings against a sick industrial company tenant, because such actions are not proceedings for winding up, execution, distress, or similar recovery against company property. The Court treated the tenant's limited occupancy interest as outside the protection claimed, so the eviction action was not barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an interim order staying the operation of the Appellate Authority's order revives proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 so as to attract section 22(1); (ii) Whether eviction proceedings by a landlord against a sick industrial company tenant are automatically suspended under section 22(1).

Issue (i): Whether an interim order staying the operation of the Appellate Authority's order revives proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 so as to attract section 22(1).

Analysis: Section 22(1) applies only when an inquiry under section 16 is pending, a scheme under section 17 is under preparation or consideration, a sanctioned scheme is under implementation, or an appeal under section 25 is pending. A stay of operation of an appellate order is different from quashing that order. A stay does not wipe out the order or restore the disposed appeal to pending status. The proceedings before the Board and the Appellate Authority had already terminated, and the Delhi High Court's interim stay did not revive them.

Conclusion: The interim stay did not revive the appeal or create a pending proceeding under the Act, and section 22(1) was not attracted on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether eviction proceedings by a landlord against a sick industrial company tenant are automatically suspended under section 22(1).

Analysis: Section 22(1) stays proceedings for winding up, execution, distress or the like against the properties of the company, and appointment of a receiver. Eviction proceedings do not fall within winding up or receivership. They also do not amount to execution, distress or a similar recovery process against company property. The provision is intended to protect the working and finances of a sick company during statutory consideration, not to compel a landlord to continue the tenancy despite persistent default. A statutory tenant's limited, non-transferable occupancy interest under the Karnataka Rent Control Act was not treated as property for this purpose.

Conclusion: Eviction proceedings by the landlord were not suspended by section 22(1), and the eviction order was not in breach of that provision.

Final Conclusion: The protective umbrella of section 22(1) was unavailable both because no relevant SICA proceeding was pending and because landlord-tenant eviction proceedings were outside its scope; the appeals therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 22(1) suspends only the specific proceedings enumerated therein during the pendency of the statutory SICA process, and a mere stay of an appellate order does not revive disposed proceedings or extend the suspension to landlord-initiated eviction actions against a sick company tenant.

---