Industrial company protection under SICA bars forcible possession and other coercive steps without statutory consent.

Once a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is registered, coercive proceedings against the industrial company's assets cannot continue without consent of the Board or Appellate Authority. A court cannot direct forcible dispossession through the Court Receiver in the face of section 22, because the mere appointment of a receiver does not place the property in custodia legis; actual possession must first be taken. As possession had not been taken, the defendants remained in control of the property, and the requested coercive step was not maintainable. The proper course was to seek statutory permission before pursuing such relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after registration of a reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Court could direct the Court Receiver to take forcible possession of the defendant's property and proceed further with the suit.

Analysis: Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars further proceedings for winding up, execution, distress, appointment of a receiver, and other coercive steps against the assets of an industrial company once an inquiry under section 16 is pending, unless consent of the Board or Appellate Authority is obtained. The mere appointment of a receiver does not by itself place the property in custodia legis; actual possession by the receiver is required. Until possession is taken, the defendants remain in possession, and the Court cannot direct forcible dispossession through a judge's order in the teeth of section 22. The proper course is to seek permission from the Board before continuing with such proceedings.

Conclusion: The Court held that section 22 barred the requested coercive step and that the property was not yet in custodia legis because the receiver had not taken possession. The application was therefore not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The suit could not be proceeded with further for the purpose of directing forcible possession against the company's assets after BIFR registration, and the plaintiff was required to seek the Board's consent before pursuing such relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a reference under section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is registered, coercive proceedings against the company's assets cannot continue without statutory consent, and a receiver's appointment does not create custodia legis until actual possession is taken.

---