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 recovery proceedings for sales tax dues and water charges could be continued against a company declared sick under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 without obtaining consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.
Analysis: Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 creates a statutory bar against proceedings for execution, distress or the like against the properties of a sick industrial company while an inquiry under section 16 is pending or a scheme under section 17 is under preparation or consideration, unless the Board or the appellate authority grants consent. The provision operates notwithstanding any other law, and the remedy is only suspended, not extinguished, with limitation excluded during the suspension period under section 22(5). Applying the settled principles governing sick companies, the Court held that the impugned recovery steps taken by the commercial tax authority and the public works authority were coercive measures against the assets of the company and could not proceed without BIFR approval.
Conclusion: The respondents could not enforce the dues by distress or recovery proceedings without obtaining consent from BIFR, and the impugned orders were unsustainable.