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 notice for recovery could be stayed on the basis of automatic suspension under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, after the proceedings before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction had concluded and the matter had been sent for winding up under section 20 of that Act.
Analysis: Section 22 operates to suspend proceedings against a sick industrial company when inquiry under section 16 or related proceedings are pending before the Board. On the facts, the inquiry and all other proceedings before the Board had already been completed, and the matter had moved to the stage of winding up before the High Court. In that situation, the statutory protection of section 22 was held to be inapplicable. The Court further held that any question of revival of the company had to be agitated before the High Court dealing with the winding up under section 20, and not in the writ proceedings challenging the recovery notice.
Conclusion: The notice could not be stayed under section 22, and the writ petition failed.
Ratio Decidendi: The suspension under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ceases to be available once BIFR proceedings are over and the matter has entered the winding-up stage under section 20, and revival issues must be pursued before the winding-up court.