https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104882 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as territorially confined to India and directed against suits or proceedings covered by the statutory bar. Mere invocation of a bank guarantee was held not to amount, by itself, to a barred proceeding, because a bank guarantee is a separate and independent contract. The plaintiff's proper remedy, if any, lay under section 22(3), which was not invoked, and no fraud or irretrievable injustice was shown. On that basis, the requested injunction was not justified. en-us Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104882 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as territorially confined to India and directed against suits or proceedings covered by the statutory bar. Mere invocation of a bank guarantee was held not to amount, by itself, to a barred proceeding, because a bank guarantee is a separate and independent contract. The plaintiff's proper remedy, if any, lay under section 22(3), which was not invoked, and no fraud or irretrievable injustice was shown. On that basis, the requested injunction was not justified. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104882