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 section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred arbitral proceedings and prevented an insolvency notice from being founded on an award against a guarantor, and whether the insolvency notice could be set aside on the ground that the award was allegedly invalid.
Analysis: Section 22 was held not to bar arbitral proceedings in the manner urged, and the applicant had not challenged the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The protection under section 22 was treated as extending to suits against guarantors, but not to execution proceedings against them, and an insolvency notice was treated as an independent proceeding rather than a continuation of the original suit. The grounds for setting aside an insolvency notice under section 9(5) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act did not include the alleged invalidity of the underlying award, and discretionary interference was found unwarranted in view of the applicant's conduct.
Conclusion: The challenge to the insolvency notice was rejected and the notice of motion was not allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not bar an insolvency notice founded on an award against a guarantor, and an insolvency notice is an independent proceeding that cannot be set aside on a ground not covered by the statutory grounds unless justice clearly requires it.