https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108247 Section 22(1) of SICA bars coercive proceedings such as winding up, execution, distress, and recovery only to preserve the assets of an industrial company, and it does not extend to shield directors from compliance with lawful consumer directions. Consumer execution proceedings for non-compliance with refund orders were therefore not shown to be stayed merely because a BIFR reference was pending. A show-cause notice under section 20(1) is only an intermediate step and does not amount to a winding-up opinion forwarded to the High Court. On that basis, the request to stay execution was rejected. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:03:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108247 Section 22(1) of SICA bars coercive proceedings such as winding up, execution, distress, and recovery only to preserve the assets of an industrial company, and it does not extend to shield directors from compliance with lawful consumer directions. Consumer execution proceedings for non-compliance with refund orders were therefore not shown to be stayed merely because a BIFR reference was pending. A show-cause notice under section 20(1) is only an intermediate step and does not amount to a winding-up opinion forwarded to the High Court. On that basis, the request to stay execution was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108247