Recovery proceedings under sick company protection law may be permitted when authorities find no serious restructuring effort.

Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not create an absolute bar on recovery or execution proceedings; the Board or Appellate Authority may permit such action in an appropriate case. The authorities found that the company and its promoters lacked seriousness, failed to honour commitments, and sought concessions unacceptable to secured creditors, and those concurrent factual findings were supported by the record. In writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court will not interfere with such findings unless they are perverse, unreasonable, or vitiated by jurisdictional error. The permission for recovery was upheld and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction were justified in permitting recovery proceedings under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and whether the High Court should interfere with their concurrent factual findings in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 22(1) does not create an absolute embargo against recovery or execution proceedings; in an appropriate case, the Board or the Appellate Authority may consent to such proceedings. The protection under the provision is not meant to be used to avoid payment obligations or to delay recovery indefinitely. On the facts, the authorities found that the company and its promoters had not acted with seriousness or expediency, had failed to honour commitments, and had sought extraordinary concessions not acceptable to secured creditors. Those findings were supported by the record and were not shown to be perverse or unreasonable. In supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, interference is not warranted with pure findings of fact unless they suffer from jurisdictional error, perversity, or similar legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The permission granted to the secured creditor to proceed with recovery was valid, and no ground for interference with the concurrent findings of the authorities was made out.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the impugned orders were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Board or Appellate Authority may permit recovery proceedings in an appropriate case, and a writ court will not disturb concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse, unreasonable, or otherwise vitiated by jurisdictional error.

---