Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, during pendency of proceedings before the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, execution and attachment could be levied against the guarantors of the industrial company on the strength of an arbitral award.
Analysis: Section 22(1) bars proceedings for execution, distress or the like against the properties of the industrial company and also bars a suit or proceeding for enforcement of any guarantee in respect of loans or advances granted to the industrial company, except with the consent of the Board or the Appellate Authority. The provision, as amended, extends protection beyond the company itself to guarantees given for its indebtedness. The Supreme Court's exposition of the section made the statutory language controlling, so that the pendency of BIFR proceedings prevented enforcement action against the guarantors as well. In that setting, attachment of the guarantor's immovable property pursuant to the award could not be sustained.
Conclusion: Execution and attachment against the guarantors were not maintainable and the attachment had to be raised.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 protects guarantors as well as the sick industrial company from enforcement proceedings in respect of the company's liabilities during the statutory bar period, unless consent of the Board or Appellate Authority is obtained.