SICA moratorium bars winding-up during BIFR proceedings unless Board consent is obtained.

Section 22(1) of SICA imposes a statutory moratorium on winding-up and other coercive proceedings while a section 16 inquiry is pending, a scheme is under preparation or consideration, a sanctioned scheme is under implementation, or an appeal is pending. The provision is meant to protect the sick industrial company and preserve the rehabilitation process from creditor action. The analysis also states that the bar is not confined to claims expressly reflected in the sanctioned scheme and operates unless the Board's consent is obtained. Winding-up is treated as a discretionary remedy that should be channelled through the BIFR framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether a winding-up petition is barred by section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 during the pendency of proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, and whether such bar depends on the claim having been reflected in the sanctioned scheme.

Analysis: Section 22(1) creates a statutory embargo on winding-up proceedings and other coercive actions once an inquiry under section 16 is pending, a scheme under sections 17 or 18 is under preparation or consideration, a sanctioned scheme is under implementation, or an appeal under section 25 is pending. The provision is intended to preserve the sick industrial company while the revival process is under consideration and to prevent creditors from defeating the statutory rehabilitation mechanism by independent proceedings. The judgment reviews competing Supreme Court authorities and follows the view that the plain language of section 22(1) requires the winding-up process to be stayed or halted unless consent of the Board is obtained, without confining the bar only to claims expressly included in the sanctioned scheme. It further treats winding-up as a discretionary remedy for which parties should be directed to the BIFR framework.

Conclusion: The winding-up petition was hit by section 22(1) and was not maintainable without the requisite consent; the objection succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The statutory moratorium under SICA prevailed, the petition could not continue, and the proceeding was finally terminated with liberty to seek fresh relief if later permissible.

Ratio Decidendi: Where proceedings under SICA are pending, section 22(1) bars winding-up and similar coercive proceedings unless the Board grants consent, and the bar is not confined to claims already incorporated in the sanctioned scheme.

---