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 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 extends to claims and recovery proceedings arising after the scheme has been prepared or sanctioned, so as to prevent winding-up proceedings based on such later claims.
Analysis: The protection under section 22 is to be strictly construed and operates to prevent enforcement of rights and liabilities that existed immediately before the relevant order or scheme. A sanctioned scheme under sections 17 and 18 is framed on the basis of the company's existing assets and liabilities, and sub-section (8) of section 18 binds creditors who were before the Board when the scheme was prepared. Claims arising after the scheme, being transactions dehors the sanctioned scheme, are not included in that moratorium merely because they may also result in recovery against company assets. The embargo cannot be extended by interpretation to future liabilities that were neither reckoned nor included in the scheme.
Conclusion: Section 22 does not bar proceedings based on post-scheme claims, and the appellant's winding-up application could not be rejected on that ground.
Ratio Decidendi: The moratorium under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is restricted to liabilities and proceedings arising from matters existing before the sanctioned scheme and does not extend to independent claims accruing after the scheme.