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 petitioners could claim the protection of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, against proceedings arising from a pronote executed by them, and whether the order directing attachment before judgment called for interference.
Analysis: The pronote recitals showed that the petitioners, who were directors of the sick company, had borrowed the amount not merely for and on behalf of the company but also in their individual capacity, with personal liability and joint and several responsibility. Protection under section 22 is intended to safeguard a sick industrial company and does not extend to amounts borrowed by individuals for their own benefit, even if the company is also bound by the transaction. On that footing, the trial court's conclusion that the statutory bar was unavailable was found to be legally sound, and no infirmity was shown in the order directing attachment before judgment.
Conclusion: Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held inapplicable, and the revision failed.
Final Conclusion: The order of attachment before judgment was sustained and the civil revision petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Protection under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is unavailable where the liability is incurred by individuals in their personal capacity and not solely on behalf of the sick industrial company.