BIFR jurisdiction requires strict statutory preconditions, and absent them section 22 protection cannot stop winding up proceedings.

Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies only where the company satisfies the jurisdictional facts for BIFR reference, including status as an industrial company owning an industrial undertaking in a scheduled industry and meeting the prescribed registration requirement. The court treated these preconditions as jurisdictional facts; absent them, BIFR's registration of the reference is a nullity and may be ignored even in collateral proceedings. On the material before it, the company had not established the requisite industrial undertaking foundation, so the statutory stay was not available and the winding up proceedings were not stayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the BIFR had jurisdiction to register and entertain the respondent-company's reference so as to attract the statutory stay under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and whether the winding up proceedings were liable to be stayed.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies only to a company that is an industrial company, owning an industrial undertaking engaged in a scheduled industry and satisfying the requirement of registration for the prescribed period. The Court held that the existence of these conditions is a jurisdictional fact. If such jurisdictional facts are absent, the BIFR's registration of a reference is without inherent jurisdiction and is therefore a nullity, capable of being ignored even in collateral proceedings. On the material placed, the respondent-company had not owned any industrial undertaking till the relevant licence under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 was obtained, and the attempt to bring itself within the protective umbrella of the statute was found to be unsupported by the requisite jurisdictional foundation.

Conclusion: The BIFR lacked inherent jurisdiction to register the reference, section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was not attracted, and the prayer to stay the winding up petition sine die was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory stay defence failed, and the company petition was allowed to proceed with the usual consequential directions following admission.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory preconditions for BIFR jurisdiction are absent, the registration of a reference is a nullity and cannot bar proceedings under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

---