Section 22 protection does not cover additional security demand and threatened power disconnection for a sick industrial undertaking.

A declared sick industrial undertaking could not invoke section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to restrain an electricity authority's demand for additional security and threat of disconnection. Although section 22 had been construed broadly to cover more than formal legal proceedings, a binding Division Bench precedent had already held that such a demand and consequential disconnection notice did not amount to a proceeding within the section. That precedent controlled the issue, so the protective bar under section 22 did not apply.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for additional security and the threat of disconnection of power supply against a declared sick industrial undertaking amounted to a "proceeding" barred by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The petitioner was a declared sick industrial undertaking and relied on the protective effect of section 22 of the Act to contend that the impugned demand and threatened disconnection were coercive steps for enforcing a liability during the pendency of revival proceedings. The Court noted that section 22 had been given a wide construction in earlier authority and could extend beyond strictly formal legal proceedings. However, an earlier Division Bench decision had already considered an identical demand for additional security by the electricity authority and had held that such a demand and the consequential threat of disconnection did not constitute a proceeding within the meaning of section 22. In view of that binding precedent, the broader interpretation of section 22 did not assist the petitioner.

Conclusion: The demand and threatened disconnection were not proceedings within section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the writ petition failed.

---