https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106024 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act bars proceedings only against the properties of the sick industrial company, so it does not extend to equipment owned by a lessor under a lease. The Delhi HC distinguished leasehold interests in immovable property from leased equipment whose title remained with the petitioner, and held that seeking possession and preservation of that equipment was not action against the respondent's property. It further noted that treating the lessor's own equipment as the lessee's property would defeat the lease and improperly impair the lessor's contractual and proprietary rights. The section 22 bar therefore did not prevent appointment of a receiver under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. en-us Mon, 08 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:24:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106024 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act bars proceedings only against the properties of the sick industrial company, so it does not extend to equipment owned by a lessor under a lease. The Delhi HC distinguished leasehold interests in immovable property from leased equipment whose title remained with the petitioner, and held that seeking possession and preservation of that equipment was not action against the respondent's property. It further noted that treating the lessor's own equipment as the lessee's property would defeat the lease and improperly impair the lessor's contractual and proprietary rights. The section 22 bar therefore did not prevent appointment of a receiver under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 08 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106024