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 section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred execution of a money decree passed for labour charges for painting and signboard work against a sick industrial company without consent of the Board.
Analysis: Section 22 suspends proceedings for winding up, execution, distress, recovery of money, and enforcement of security where the claim is in respect of loans or advances granted to the industrial company, or where the proceeding would affect the working or finances of a sick company in the manner contemplated by the provision. The decree in question arose from work actually rendered by the petitioner, namely painting and signboard labour work, and was not a claim for any loan or advance. The protective bar under section 22 was therefore not attracted to the execution of such a decree. The authorities concerning rent, wages, and other claims against sick companies did not alter this position, because the present claim was for work done and not for recovery of financial assistance advanced to the company.
Conclusion: Section 22 did not apply to the execution of the decree for labour charges, and the stay of execution was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not extend to execution of a decree for amounts due for work actually rendered, where the claim is not for a loan or advance granted to the sick industrial company.