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 continuation of a simple suit for recovery under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the absence of any admitted liability so as to justify review of the earlier order.
Analysis: The established position applied by the Court was that Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 protects a sick company only against proceedings that are in the nature of execution, distress or the like, or other coercive enforcement action. A mere suit for recovery of money does not attract the bar merely because the defendant is a sick company, unless the claim is admitted in a sanctioned scheme or otherwise admitted before the court. On the facts, there was no credible admission of the suit amount by the petitioner, and the pending recovery action did not threaten the petitioner's properties in a manner that would bring it within the statutory protection.
Conclusion: Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar the recovery suit, and no ground for review was made out.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies only to coercive proceedings in the nature of execution, distress or the like, and does not prevent a simple money recovery suit from continuing in the absence of an admitted claim or comparable enforcement action.