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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction attracted the protective bar under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 so as to invalidate the auction proceedings and confirmation of sale.
Analysis: The protective regime under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held to operate automatically once the statutory process under Section 15 had been set in motion and an appeal under Section 25 remained pending. The Court treated the earlier stage of registration and pendency of appeal as sufficient to attract the statutory restraint, and held that any coercive action against the assets of the sick company during that period would be contrary to Section 22. On that basis, the auction proceedings undertaken while the appeal was pending were found to be without legal authority. The Court also treated the impugned sale confirmation as a consequence of the same illegality.
Conclusion: The auction sale proceedings and the order confirming sale were held to be void and liable to be set aside, in favour of the petitioner.