<?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>1996 (1) TMI 343 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103049</link>
    <description>Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars winding-up proceedings where a sick company reference, inquiry, scheme process, or appeal is pending, unless consent is obtained from the Board or Appellate Authority. The bar applies both to institution of a fresh petition and to continuation of proceedings already filed. Where the company had already been declared sick and the reference was pending before the Board when the winding-up petition was presented, the petition was not maintainable. Section 22(5) preserves limitation by excluding the suspension period, so the creditor&#039;s remedy remains available if consent is later secured.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:12:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 343 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103049</link>
      <description>Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars winding-up proceedings where a sick company reference, inquiry, scheme process, or appeal is pending, unless consent is obtained from the Board or Appellate Authority. The bar applies both to institution of a fresh petition and to continuation of proceedings already filed. Where the company had already been declared sick and the reference was pending before the Board when the winding-up petition was presented, the petition was not maintainable. Section 22(5) preserves limitation by excluding the suspension period, so the creditor&#039;s remedy remains available if consent is later secured.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>