Company tenancy proceedings: no Company Court leave required and sick company protection did not bar the eviction suit.

Proceedings for recovery of possession against a tenant company did not require prior leave of the Company Court under Sections 442 and 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, because those provisions do not create an automatic bar in every proceeding and depend on the nature of the action. The eviction suit was also not barred by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, as eviction proceedings are outside its protection. The company's tenancy rights, by themselves, did not trigger a mandatory requirement of leave, and the request for stay was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings for possession against a company tenant could be stayed or continued only after obtaining leave of the Company Court under Sections 442 and 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and whether Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred the eviction suit.

Analysis: The request for stay was examined in the light of the scope of Sections 442 and 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, which do not create an automatic bar in every case but operate depending on the nature of the proceedings and the purpose sought to be served. The suit was one for recovery of possession from a tenant company, and the Court relied on the principle that eviction proceedings are not covered by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It was also noted that the company's tenancy rights did not, by themselves, attract a mandatory requirement of leave from the Company Court for the present proceeding.

Conclusion: No leave of the Company Court was necessary, and the defendant company was not entitled to a stay under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The application for stay was rejected.

---