TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether prior consent of the BIFR/AAIFR was required under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 for continuation of a simple money recovery suit against a sick company.
Analysis: Section 22 bars proceedings of the nature of execution, distress, or like proceedings, and the statutory protection applies where the proceeding has the effect of interfering with the formulation, consideration, finalisation, or implementation of the revival scheme. The bar does not extend to every civil suit merely because it is filed for recovery of money. A money recovery suit simpliciter, without any coercive step aimed at liquidation or attachment of the assets of the sick company, does not fall within the mischief of Section 22. Since the interim applications seeking coercive relief were not pressed, the suit did not threaten the assets of the sick company.
Conclusion: Prior permission of the BIFR/AAIFR was not required, and the suit was permitted to proceed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies only to proceedings that are in the nature of execution, distress, or analogous coercive action and that would interfere with the revival scheme; a bare suit for recovery of money, without such coercive effect, is not barred.
TaxTMI 
