https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108429 Section 22(1) of SICA was held to bar "proceedings" for recovery only against the sick industrial company, not against its guarantors. The SC construed the 1994 amendment phrase as confined to the pre-decretal stage, since execution recovery proceedings are already covered by the first limb of s.22(1). Applying Maharashtra Tubes, proceedings under the U.P. statute were characterised as "recovery proceedings" falling within the first limb and not as a "suit for recovery" under the second limb; consequently, the statutory embargo did not extend to guarantors. The appeal was dismissed, and recovery against guarantors under the U.P. statute was permitted. en-us Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 12:47:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108429 Section 22(1) of SICA was held to bar "proceedings" for recovery only against the sick industrial company, not against its guarantors. The SC construed the 1994 amendment phrase as confined to the pre-decretal stage, since execution recovery proceedings are already covered by the first limb of s.22(1). Applying Maharashtra Tubes, proceedings under the U.P. statute were characterised as "recovery proceedings" falling within the first limb and not as a "suit for recovery" under the second limb; consequently, the statutory embargo did not extend to guarantors. The appeal was dismissed, and recovery against guarantors under the U.P. statute was permitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108429