Article 227 and SICA stay protection: eviction suits are outside Section 22(1) and supervisory interference is limited.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily does not justify interference with concurrent findings absent jurisdictional error or patent illegality. Section 22(1) of SICA suspends specified proceedings such as winding up, execution, distress, receiver appointment, and certain recovery or enforcement actions, but a landlord's suit for possession or eviction is not covered by that bar. The commentary also notes that the statutory protection was not established on the pleaded facts, including any showing that the premises formed part of a BIFR scheme or that the relevant plea had been taken in the written statement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to challenge concurrent orders refusing to stay eviction proceedings under Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and does not permit interference with concurrent findings of fact except in exceptional cases of jurisdictional error or patent illegality. Section 22(1) of SICA suspends only proceedings for winding up, execution, distress or the like against the property of the industrial company, and appointment of a receiver, besides money-recovery and security-enforcement proceedings. A suit for possession or eviction by a landlord is not covered by the statutory bar, and the petitioner had also not established that the premises in dispute formed part of any BIFR scheme or that a relevant plea had been taken in the written statement.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable on the merits urged, and the refusal to stay the eviction proceedings under Section 22(1) of SICA was upheld against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 22(1) of SICA does not bar a landlord's eviction or possession suit against a sick industrial company, and Article 227 will not be used to disturb concurrent findings absent jurisdictional error or patent illegality.

---