<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (11) TMI 911 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106550</link>
    <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 creates a mandatory bar on further winding-up proceedings once a reference is registered and an enquiry under section 16 is pending, unless the Board or appellate authority consents. In that setting, the company court cannot continue with the petition or take further steps that would advance it on the merits. The same statutory protection also prevents the court from modifying or suspending earlier interim orders passed in the winding-up matter, because ancillary judicial directions affecting the company are likewise caught by the embargo. The result stated is that the winding-up proceedings and related interim intervention were stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:55:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 911 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106550</link>
      <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 creates a mandatory bar on further winding-up proceedings once a reference is registered and an enquiry under section 16 is pending, unless the Board or appellate authority consents. In that setting, the company court cannot continue with the petition or take further steps that would advance it on the merits. The same statutory protection also prevents the court from modifying or suspending earlier interim orders passed in the winding-up matter, because ancillary judicial directions affecting the company are likewise caught by the embargo. The result stated is that the winding-up proceedings and related interim intervention were stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106550</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>