https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103146 A subsidiary company was held not to receive the Sick Industrial Companies Act protection available to its holding company, because each remains a separate legal entity and section 22 suspension applies only to the company before the Board. On that basis, winding-up proceedings against the subsidiary were not barred. The court also held that where the debt was admitted, unpaid, and no satisfactory ground existed to defer relief, judicial discretion should not be used to withhold or postpone a winding-up order. Commercial insolvency and creditor protection justified winding up on the admitted default. en-us Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:34:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103146 A subsidiary company was held not to receive the Sick Industrial Companies Act protection available to its holding company, because each remains a separate legal entity and section 22 suspension applies only to the company before the Board. On that basis, winding-up proceedings against the subsidiary were not barred. The court also held that where the debt was admitted, unpaid, and no satisfactory ground existed to defer relief, judicial discretion should not be used to withhold or postpone a winding-up order. Commercial insolvency and creditor protection justified winding up on the admitted default. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103146