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, during the pendency of a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act before the BIFR, the creditors and the authorities could continue attachment and other coercive recovery steps against the petitioner's assets without BIFR consent.
Analysis: A reference under section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act had been registered and was pending before the BIFR, with inquiry under sections 16 and 17 in progress. In such a situation, section 22 operates as a bar against proceeding with recovery from the assets of the company unless the BIFR has accorded consent. The pendency of the reference made the coercive attachment measures impermissible, and factual objections could not override the settled statutory position.
Conclusion: The attachment notices and the restraints on the petitioner's properties could not be given effect to in the absence of BIFR consent.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained protection against coercive recovery, while the creditor was left at liberty to seek the BIFR's consent for further proceedings and the BIFR was directed to expedite the pending reference.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a reference under section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act is pending before the BIFR, section 22 bars coercive recovery against the company's assets unless prior consent of the BIFR is obtained.