https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108429 Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred only the proceedings expressly covered by its language and did not extend by implication to summary recovery action against guarantors under the U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. The Court held that a certificate-based recovery process is not a suit in a court of law, and that the guarantors' liability remained co-extensive under section 128 of the Contract Act unless the contract provided otherwise. Since enforcement of the guarantee in this manner did not frustrate the revival of the sick company, the recovery proceedings against the guarantors were 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 the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred only the proceedings expressly covered by its language and did not extend by implication to summary recovery action against guarantors under the U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. The Court held that a certificate-based recovery process is not a suit in a court of law, and that the guarantors' liability remained co-extensive under section 128 of the Contract Act unless the contract provided otherwise. Since enforcement of the guarantee in this manner did not frustrate the revival of the sick company, the recovery proceedings against the guarantors were permitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108429