<?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>1995 (3) TMI 334 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102700</link>
    <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 suspends winding up and other coercive proceedings against a sick industrial company while an inquiry, scheme consideration, or appeal is pending, unless consent is obtained from the competent statutory authority. The provision is construed broadly to preserve the Act&#039;s revival and rehabilitation objective and to prevent steps that would defeat the statutory process. Because the winding up order was made before the Board had finally determined the matter and while the appeal remained pending, it was barred by section 22 and could not stand. The company court was required to await the appellate decision, subject to the limited protective conditions regarding possession and management.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:35:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139746" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 334 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102700</link>
      <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 suspends winding up and other coercive proceedings against a sick industrial company while an inquiry, scheme consideration, or appeal is pending, unless consent is obtained from the competent statutory authority. The provision is construed broadly to preserve the Act&#039;s revival and rehabilitation objective and to prevent steps that would defeat the statutory process. Because the winding up order was made before the Board had finally determined the matter and while the appeal remained pending, it was barred by section 22 and could not stand. The company court was required to await the appellate decision, subject to the limited protective conditions regarding possession and management.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>