https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104973 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as inapplicable to an eviction proceeding for default in rent and to an order under section 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, because such a proceeding is not a suit for recovery of money and the rent-deposit direction is only an interim mechanism within rent litigation. The objection that no notice under section 12(2) had been served also did not defeat the section 11(4) application, because that notice issue goes to the maintainability of the eviction suit at the stage of final adjudication, not to the court's power to decide the interim deposit application. en-us Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 May 2014 10:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104973 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as inapplicable to an eviction proceeding for default in rent and to an order under section 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, because such a proceeding is not a suit for recovery of money and the rent-deposit direction is only an interim mechanism within rent litigation. The objection that no notice under section 12(2) had been served also did not defeat the section 11(4) application, because that notice issue goes to the maintainability of the eviction suit at the stage of final adjudication, not to the court's power to decide the interim deposit application. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104973