https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108907 Public notice dated 6 April 1999 did not grant an automatic extension of time for discharge of export obligation under the EPCG scheme; it only allowed a licence-holder to seek extension within the prescribed period and subject to conditions, including furnishing the required bank guarantee, which the petitioner had not done. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held to protect proceedings relating to loans, advances, or guarantees for such loans or advances, not bank guarantees furnished to secure performance of export obligations. On that construction, invocation and enforcement of the guarantees were not barred, and writ relief to restrain enforcement was unavailable. en-us Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:45:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108907 Public notice dated 6 April 1999 did not grant an automatic extension of time for discharge of export obligation under the EPCG scheme; it only allowed a licence-holder to seek extension within the prescribed period and subject to conditions, including furnishing the required bank guarantee, which the petitioner had not done. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held to protect proceedings relating to loans, advances, or guarantees for such loans or advances, not bank guarantees furnished to secure performance of export obligations. On that construction, invocation and enforcement of the guarantees were not barred, and writ relief to restrain enforcement was unavailable. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108907