Sick company stay under SICA does not cover objections to an arbitral award before execution or recovery begins.

Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was confined to winding up, execution, distress, similar recovery proceedings, and appointment of a receiver against a sick industrial company's property. Objections to an arbitral award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act did not fall within that bar because no execution or recovery stage had begun. The High Court therefore held that the statutory stay was unavailable, and the application for stay was rejected as misconceived. The Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 22(1) was applied as governing the field.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings on objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act could be stayed under Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on the ground that the respondent had been declared a sick company.

Analysis: Section 22(1) suspends only specified proceedings, namely winding up, execution, distress or similar recovery proceedings against the property of a sick industrial company, and appointment of a receiver. The objections to the arbitral award were still pending and no stage had been reached where recovery by execution, distress or similar process against the respondent's property had commenced. On that construction, the statutory bar was not attracted. The decision relied upon by the applicant was not followed, as the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 22(1) governed the field.

Conclusion: The request for stay under Section 22(1) was rejected and the application was dismissed as misconceived.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies only to proceedings for execution, distress or similar recovery processes against the property of a sick industrial company, and does not extend to objections to an arbitral award before any such recovery stage is reached.

---