https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106107 Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars continuation of a money recovery suit against a sick industrial company during pending BIFR proceedings unless consent is obtained from the Board or appellate authority. The High Court applied that statutory protection and stayed the recovery suit. It also held that the pendency of rehabilitation proceedings did not give the applicant an automatic right to withdraw or recover amounts already deposited in court pursuant to a prohibitory order, so the prayer for refund failed and the deposited amount was directed to remain in fixed deposit until disposal of the BIFR proceedings. en-us Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:32:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106107 Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars continuation of a money recovery suit against a sick industrial company during pending BIFR proceedings unless consent is obtained from the Board or appellate authority. The High Court applied that statutory protection and stayed the recovery suit. It also held that the pendency of rehabilitation proceedings did not give the applicant an automatic right to withdraw or recover amounts already deposited in court pursuant to a prohibitory order, so the prayer for refund failed and the deposited amount was directed to remain in fixed deposit until disposal of the BIFR proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106107