https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107979 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar enforcement of the writ direction where the company had already been declared sick, the Board had recommended winding up, and no revival scheme was pending. The statutory suspension of proceedings was linked to a live inquiry, scheme, or related consideration before the Board, but the earlier direction to consider revival had lost force because no scheme was filed within time and no revival proceeding remained pending. On those facts, the protective umbrella of Section 22 was inapplicable and the challenge to the writ order failed. en-us Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:01:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107979 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar enforcement of the writ direction where the company had already been declared sick, the Board had recommended winding up, and no revival scheme was pending. The statutory suspension of proceedings was linked to a live inquiry, scheme, or related consideration before the Board, but the earlier direction to consider revival had lost force because no scheme was filed within time and no revival proceeding remained pending. On those facts, the protective umbrella of Section 22 was inapplicable and the challenge to the writ order failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107979