SICA protection claims in stay proceedings must first be examined by the Tribunal, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

The High Court held that SICA-based objections to coercive recovery should not be decided for the first time in writ proceedings at the stage of a stay application. Where the petitioner claimed sick industrial company status and asserted that a pending reference under Section 15(1) and the protections under Sections 16 and 22 applied, the appropriate course was to let the Tribunal examine those contentions in the first instance. The impugned stay order was quashed and the stay application was restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned stay order should be quashed and the stay application remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in light of the petitioner's claim that it is a sick industrial company and that recovery proceedings are protected by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The Court declined to decide the SICA-related objections for the first time in a writ petition at the stage of a stay application. Since the petitioner asserted that a reference under Section 15(1) was pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and that Sections 16 and 22 may protect it against coercive recovery, the proper course was to allow both sides to raise their contentions before the Tribunal. The Court therefore set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the stay application for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision on the stay application.

---