Section 22(1) SICA stays only coercive asset-related proceedings, not an ordinary suit for liability adjudication.

Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held to bar only coercive proceedings such as winding up, execution, distress or similar steps against an industrial company's assets. The phrase "or the like" was construed ejusdem generis with execution and distress, so it did not extend the statutory stay to a civil suit merely seeking adjudication of liability. The Statement of Objects and Reasons could not enlarge the plain text of the provision. The suit was therefore not stayed, and the stay motion failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 stayed a suit pending merely because an inquiry under section 16 was pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.

Analysis: The statutory language was read according to its plain meaning. The protective bar in section 22(1) was confined to proceedings for winding up, execution, distress or like coercive steps against the properties of the industrial company, and not to every civil suit or liability determination. The phrase "or the like" was construed ejusdem generis with execution and distress, so as to cover only coercive proceedings of a similar nature that would affect seizure or sale of the company's assets. The Statement of Objects and Reasons did not justify enlarging the clear text of the provision.

Conclusion: Section 22(1) did not require stay of the suit, and the motion for stay failed.

Ratio Decidendi: The embargo under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is limited to coercive proceedings against the company's properties and does not extend to the mere pendency of an ordinary suit for adjudication of liability.

---