https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101802 Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act imposed a statutory bar during the protected period, and the High Court held that possession of the premises could not be granted to the landlord because that would indirectly defeat the stay on winding-up proceedings. The non obstante clause in section 22(1) prevailed over section 443 of the Companies Act, so the power to adjourn or regulate winding-up proceedings on conditions could not be used to override the special statutory protection. The application for possession or for conditional modification of the stay was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. en-us Fri, 18 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:59:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101802 Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act imposed a statutory bar during the protected period, and the High Court held that possession of the premises could not be granted to the landlord because that would indirectly defeat the stay on winding-up proceedings. The non obstante clause in section 22(1) prevailed over section 443 of the Companies Act, so the power to adjourn or regulate winding-up proceedings on conditions could not be used to override the special statutory protection. The application for possession or for conditional modification of the stay was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 18 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101802