<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (4) TMI 333 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102193</link>
    <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held to apply once a company was under inquiry or scheme consideration before the Board, thereby suspending pending winding up proceedings and related judge&#039;s summonses rather than dismissing or abating them. The proceedings remained on the file but could not continue without the requisite statutory consent, and could revive if the legal bar ceased. Existing ad interim injunctions were not treated as automatically lapsed; they were modified to conform to the Board&#039;s rehabilitation process and could not obstruct inquiry, sanction, or implementation of a scheme, with leave required before dealing with assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:26:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 333 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102193</link>
      <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held to apply once a company was under inquiry or scheme consideration before the Board, thereby suspending pending winding up proceedings and related judge&#039;s summonses rather than dismissing or abating them. The proceedings remained on the file but could not continue without the requisite statutory consent, and could revive if the legal bar ceased. Existing ad interim injunctions were not treated as automatically lapsed; they were modified to conform to the Board&#039;s rehabilitation process and could not obstruct inquiry, sanction, or implementation of a scheme, with leave required before dealing with assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>