TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 barred continuance of pre-award arbitral proceedings and whether the plea under that provision could be raised only at the stage of enforcement after the award became a decree.
Analysis: The embargo under Section 22(1) was held to operate only where the proceeding answers the description in the provision and its continuance would also interfere with the formulation, consideration, finalisation or implementation of the rehabilitation scheme. The Court distinguished between a pre-award arbitral proceeding and execution of an award, and noted that an award does not become a decree until the Section 34 stage is crossed and the award attains enforceability. Reliance on earlier authorities was read as supporting the distinction between adjudication of liability in arbitration and coercive recovery against the assets of a sick company. On the facts, the parties were at a pre-award stage, no decree or executable award existed, and the proceedings did not by themselves attract the statutory bar.
Conclusion: Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 did not bar the continuance of the pending arbitral proceedings at the pre-award stage, and the objection could arise only at the stage of enforcement once the award became a decree.
Ratio Decidendi: A pre-award arbitral proceeding, by itself, is not barred by Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985; the statutory suspension becomes relevant only when the proceeding falls within the provision and, in addition, its continuance would interfere with the rehabilitation scheme, especially at the stage when an award has matured into an enforceable decree.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
