Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Winding-up petition dismissed due to lack of BIFR consent under SICA Section 22(1)</h1> <h3>SM Singhvi Versus Bestavision Electronics Ltd.</h3> The court held that the winding-up petition was not maintainable without the consent of the BIFR as required by Section 22(1) of SICA. The petition was ... Suspension of legal proceedings, contract, etc. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the winding-up petition under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA).2. Interpretation of Section 22(1) of SICA regarding the suspension of legal proceedings.3. Scope and applicability of Section 22(1) in relation to various judicial precedents.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Winding-Up Petition:The primary issue raised by the Respondent is whether the winding-up petition is maintainable under Section 22 of SICA. The court examined several decisions by the Apex Court which have created a dichotomy of opinion on this matter. Section 22(1) of SICA states that no proceedings for the winding-up of an industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or the Appellate Authority.2. Interpretation of Section 22(1) of SICA:The court referenced the decision in *Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial & Investment Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd.* [1993] 78 Comp. Cas. 803, where the Supreme Court emphasized the broad scope of Section 22(1), indicating that the purpose of this provision is to await the outcome of the reference made to the BIFR for the revival and rehabilitation of the sick industrial company. The court noted that the term 'proceedings' in Section 22(1) should not be narrowly interpreted to mean only legal proceedings but should include any coercive measures against the company's properties.3. Scope and Applicability of Section 22(1):The court considered several precedents to clarify the scope of Section 22(1):- In *Dy. CTO v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals* [1997] 14 SCL 154, the Supreme Court held that the suspension of legal proceedings applies only to dues included in the sanctioned scheme.- In *Tata Davy Ltd. v. State of Orissa* [1997] 14 SCL 81, the court favored a broader interpretation, requiring all creditors to obtain the consent of the Board to recover their dues from sick industrial companies.- *Sirmor Sudburg Auto Ltd. v. Kuldip Singh Lamba* [1998] 91 Comp. Cas. 727, and subsequent decisions, supported the view that only claims included in the sanctioned scheme are subject to the suspension under Section 22(1).- The court also referenced *Real Value Appliances Ltd. v. Canara Bank* [1998] 16 SCL 445, where the Supreme Court held that the inquiry under Section 16 of SICA commences as soon as the reference is completed, and from that time, action against the company's assets must remain stayed until the BIFR makes a final decision.The court acknowledged the potential for misuse of Section 22 to delay or defeat creditors' legitimate claims but emphasized that the plain meaning of the statutory words must be adhered to. The court concluded that Section 22(1) requires the cessation of all proceedings, including winding-up petitions, to allow the BIFR to consider remedial measures for the sick industrial company.Conclusion:The court held that the winding-up petition is not maintainable without the consent of the BIFR, as required by Section 22(1) of SICA. The petition was dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition if necessary. The court reiterated that the suspension of limitation under SICA ensures that creditors are not left without a remedy. All pending applications were also disposed of, with parties bearing their respective costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found