https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109592 Pendency of an appeal before the AAIFR attracted the statutory protection under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, so continuation of proceedings and execution of earlier orders were stayed to that limited extent. At the interlocutory stage, the Court declined to finally construe the hire purchase agreement or determine ownership of the plant and machinery, leaving the title dispute for trial. Pending that determination, the receiver was required to retain symbolic possession only, and the defendant was restrained from dealing with the machinery except in the ordinary course of business until disposal of the suit. en-us Fri, 23 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:33:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109592 Pendency of an appeal before the AAIFR attracted the statutory protection under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, so continuation of proceedings and execution of earlier orders were stayed to that limited extent. At the interlocutory stage, the Court declined to finally construe the hire purchase agreement or determine ownership of the plant and machinery, leaving the title dispute for trial. Pending that determination, the receiver was required to retain symbolic possession only, and the defendant was restrained from dealing with the machinery except in the ordinary course of business until disposal of the suit. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 23 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109592