https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104885 Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not create an absolute bar on recovery or execution proceedings; the Board or Appellate Authority may permit such action in an appropriate case. The authorities found that the company and its promoters lacked seriousness, failed to honour commitments, and sought concessions unacceptable to secured creditors, and those concurrent factual findings were supported by the record. In writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court will not interfere with such findings unless they are perverse, unreasonable, or vitiated by jurisdictional error. The permission for recovery was upheld and the writ petition failed. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:50:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104885 Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not create an absolute bar on recovery or execution proceedings; the Board or Appellate Authority may permit such action in an appropriate case. The authorities found that the company and its promoters lacked seriousness, failed to honour commitments, and sought concessions unacceptable to secured creditors, and those concurrent factual findings were supported by the record. In writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court will not interfere with such findings unless they are perverse, unreasonable, or vitiated by jurisdictional error. The permission for recovery was upheld and the writ petition failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104885