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 the bar under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies to proceedings under section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956 for return of deposits.
Analysis: Section 22(1) stays specified proceedings against a sick industrial company, including suits for recovery of money. The claim before the Company Law Board was for return of deposits made with the company after maturity. Such deposits are not loans advanced to the company in the strict sense, but money held by the company for repayment on maturity. A demand for return of a matured deposit is therefore not a suit for recovery of money due in the sense contemplated by section 22(1). The protective bar under the Act, being in the nature of an exception, is to be construed strictly and not extended to cases that do not involve execution, distress, or similar coercive recovery against the company's property.
Conclusion: Section 22(1) does not extend to proceedings under section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956 for return of matured deposits, and the challenge by the appellant fails.
Ratio Decidendi: A matured deposit claim against a sick industrial company is not a suit for recovery of money within the meaning of section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the statutory bar must be strictly construed.