1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court lifts stay order in money suit under Sick Industrial Companies Act, applied wrongly retrospectively.</h1> The Court allowed the Revisional Application, finding that the stay order in the money suit under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act was ... Suspension of legal proceedings, etc. Issues:1. Stay of proceedings in a money suit under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.Analysis:1. The case involved a Revisional Application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging an order for stay of further proceedings in a money suit under section 22(1) of the 1985 Act. The Assistant District Judge allowed the Company's application for stay based on being declared a Sick Industrial Company by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The petitioner contested, claiming the Company had recovered financially and should not fall under section 22(1) of the Act.2. The petitioner argued that the Company's financial improvement and increased production indicated it was no longer a Sick Industrial Company. The Assistant District Judge, however, upheld the stay order until the finalization of the Scheme by the Board. The petitioner challenged this decision, citing the Company's profitability and export activities as evidence of its improved financial status.3. The petitioner contended that the amendment to section 22(1) of the 1985 Act, which included money suits, should not apply retrospectively to their suit filed in 1992. They referred to a Delhi High Court decision supporting this argument, emphasizing that the amendment should only affect suits filed after its introduction in 1994.4. The respondent relied on precedents such as Maharashtra Tubes Ltd., Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., and Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. to support the stay of proceedings in money suits of Sick Industrial Companies under section 22(1) of the Act. The Court interpreted the scope of 'proceedings' in section 22(1) broadly, encompassing legal actions beyond traditional court proceedings.5. The Court found that the Assistant District Judge had erred in applying the stay order to the petitioner's suit, which was filed before the amendment to section 22(1) extended to money suits. Consequently, the Revisional Application was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
