Section 22(1) SICA bar extends to appeals on monetary claims against a sick industrial company absent consent.

Section 22(1) of SICA bars continuation of pending proceedings, including appeals, where the proceeding concerns a monetary claim against a sick industrial company, unless consent is obtained from the Board or Appellate Authority. The operative phrase "be proceeded with further" is read broadly to cover continuation at any stage, and the bar is not limited to proceedings originally instituted against the company. A sick company's own appeal does not escape the restriction if the underlying dispute is a money claim. The provision is applied in light of SICA's protective and rehabilitative scheme, avoiding inconsistent treatment of appeals and cross-objections arising from the same transaction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bar under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 extends to the continuation of an appeal filed by a sick industrial company against an order relating to a monetary claim.

Analysis: Section 22(1) suspends proceedings concerning winding up, execution, distress, recovery of money, enforcement of security, and related claims against a sick industrial company while the statutory conditions exist, unless consent is obtained from the Board or the Appellate Authority. The operative expression is "be proceeded with further", which indicates a bar on continuation of pending proceedings at any stage, including appeal, where the subject matter is a monetary claim against the industrial company. The provision does not carve out an exception merely because the appeal is filed by the sick company itself. Reading the provision in the context of the statutory scheme and the object of protecting and rehabilitating sick industrial undertakings, the bar applies to all such proceedings unless permitted by the competent authority. A contrary view would produce an artificial distinction and lead to anomalous results, including inconsistent treatment of appeals and cross-objections arising from the same transaction.

Conclusion: The restriction under section 22(1) applies to the appeal as well, and the appeal could not continue without the requisite consent; the contention of the petitioner fails.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable on the petitioner's interpretation of section 22(1) and the impugned suspension of proceedings was sustained, resulting in dismissal of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory bar in section 22(1) of SICA is not confined to proceedings originally instituted against the sick industrial company, but extends to the continuation of any pending proceeding, including an appeal, where the proceeding concerns a monetary claim against the company and no consent of the competent authority has been obtained.

---