Eviction suits and money-recovery claims under sick company law turn on whether dues are covered by the sanctioned scheme.

Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act does not stay a landlord's eviction suit against a sick industrial company because possession proceedings are not coercive recovery proceedings against the company's property. After the 1993 amendment, however, a claim for arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits is a suit for recovery of money and can fall within the statutory bar. That bar applies only if the dues are reckoned in, or covered by, the sanctioned scheme; liabilities arising after the sanctioned scheme are outside it. The eviction relief remained unstayed, while the monetary claim required fresh consideration on whether it was included in the sanctioned scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a suit by a landlord for eviction of a sick industrial company is stayed under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985; (ii) whether a suit for arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits is a suit for recovery of money within the amended section 22(1), and whether such claim is hit by the statutory bar only if the dues are reckoned or included in the sanctioned scheme.

Issue (i): whether a suit by a landlord for eviction of a sick industrial company is stayed under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The expression in section 22(1) covers proceedings for winding up, execution, distress or the like against the properties of the sick company, but does not extend to eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord. A landlord's suit for recovery of possession is not a coercive proceeding for recovery of dues against the company's property within the meaning of the statutory bar, and the liberal construction of the provision cannot enlarge it beyond the legislative object.

Conclusion: The eviction part of the suit is not stayed and the refusal to grant stay on that relief is upheld.

Issue (ii): whether a suit for arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits is a suit for recovery of money within the amended section 22(1), and whether such claim is hit by the statutory bar only if the dues are reckoned or included in the sanctioned scheme.

Analysis: After the 1993 amendment, section 22(1) expressly includes a suit for recovery of money. A claim for arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits creates a financial liability and therefore falls within that description. However, the statutory protection is not automatic merely because an inquiry is pending; the dues must be covered by, or reckoned in, the sanctioned scheme, and liabilities arising after the sanctioned scheme are outside the bar. Since the trial court had not examined the claim on that footing, the matter required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The money-recovery claim is covered in principle by section 22(1), but the question of stay must be decided afresh by the trial court on whether the dues are included in the sanctioned scheme.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only in part: the order declining stay of the eviction relief remained undisturbed, while the issue of stay of the monetary claim was remitted for reconsideration in the light of the governing statutory test.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not stay a landlord's eviction suit against a sick industrial company, and the bar against money-recovery proceedings applies only to dues reckoned in or covered by the sanctioned scheme.

---