https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109421 Section 22 of SICA continued to bar execution proceedings while an appeal under section 25 remained pending, even though the reference had been dismissed after inquiry under section 16. The statutory protection was not excluded because the decree was a money decree for refund of security deposit arising from tenanted premises; the provision extends to execution and recovery proceedings against the company's assets. A prior short dismissal order did not create res judicata, because the section 22 objection had not been finally decided on merits. The execution proceedings were therefore stayed. en-us Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:48:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109421 Section 22 of SICA continued to bar execution proceedings while an appeal under section 25 remained pending, even though the reference had been dismissed after inquiry under section 16. The statutory protection was not excluded because the decree was a money decree for refund of security deposit arising from tenanted premises; the provision extends to execution and recovery proceedings against the company's assets. A prior short dismissal order did not create res judicata, because the section 22 objection had not been finally decided on merits. The execution proceedings were therefore stayed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109421