Security deposit refund claims are not barred by Section 22 when the amount is held in trust by a sick company.

Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act does not bar execution proceedings for refund of a tenant's security deposit against a sick industrial company. The deposit is treated as tenant's money held in trust for refund on termination of the tenancy, not as the company's own property, so recovery proceedings are not execution against the company's assets within the statutory bar. The provision must be construed reasonably and cannot be used to justify retention of trust money. The execution petition was therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a tenant's claim for refund of security deposit against a company declared sick and before BIFR or AAIFR is barred by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act.

Analysis: Section 22 bars proceedings for winding up, execution, distress, or like proceedings against the properties of a sick industrial company. A security deposit taken by the company as tenant's money is not the company's own property; it is money held in trust for refund when the tenancy ends and the agreed conditions are satisfied. Proceedings to recover such deposit do not amount to execution against the company's property within the meaning of the statutory bar. The provision is to be construed reasonably and not so broadly as to protect unfair retention of trust money.

Conclusion: The bar under Section 22 does not apply to execution proceedings seeking refund of the security deposit, and the execution petition is maintainable.

---