<?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>1998 (11) TMI 504 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104428</link>
    <description>Where a reference under section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was pending and the Board had already acted under sections 16 and 17, section 22 barred further execution or coercive recovery proceedings against the industrial company&#039;s property unless the Board consented. The pending execution process, including handing over the cheque to the decree-holder, formed part of the prohibited execution proceedings. As no consent of the Board had been obtained, the executing court could not continue, the objection of the judgment debtor succeeded, and the execution proceedings were directed to remain suspended.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:59:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 504 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104428</link>
      <description>Where a reference under section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was pending and the Board had already acted under sections 16 and 17, section 22 barred further execution or coercive recovery proceedings against the industrial company&#039;s property unless the Board consented. The pending execution process, including handing over the cheque to the decree-holder, formed part of the prohibited execution proceedings. As no consent of the Board had been obtained, the executing court could not continue, the objection of the judgment debtor succeeded, and the execution proceedings were directed to remain suspended.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>