https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105453 Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as inapplicable to recovery of provident fund dues, because no sanctioned rehabilitation scheme was shown and the liability had not been included in any approved scheme. The provident fund demand was characterised as statutory employer contributions and related dues not intended to be frozen under SICA, so the recovery and attachment action were upheld. The Court also noted that an express appellate remedy under section 7-I of the provident fund law existed but was not pursued, which weighed against writ interference. en-us Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:56:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105453 Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as inapplicable to recovery of provident fund dues, because no sanctioned rehabilitation scheme was shown and the liability had not been included in any approved scheme. The provident fund demand was characterised as statutory employer contributions and related dues not intended to be frozen under SICA, so the recovery and attachment action were upheld. The Court also noted that an express appellate remedy under section 7-I of the provident fund law existed but was not pursued, which weighed against writ interference. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105453