https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110287 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar proceedings where the essential relief was repossession of machinery owned by the plaintiff under hire-purchase agreements. The agreements left legal ownership with the plaintiff until full payment, and the hirer had only a right to use the equipment. On default, the plaintiff could terminate the agreements and seek protection against dissipation or alienation of the assets. The court treated such proceedings as distinct from recovery against the sick company's property and held that appointment of a receiver was justified to secure the machinery where instalments remained unpaid and the assets were at risk. en-us Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:15:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110287 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar proceedings where the essential relief was repossession of machinery owned by the plaintiff under hire-purchase agreements. The agreements left legal ownership with the plaintiff until full payment, and the hirer had only a right to use the equipment. On default, the plaintiff could terminate the agreements and seek protection against dissipation or alienation of the assets. The court treated such proceedings as distinct from recovery against the sick company's property and held that appointment of a receiver was justified to secure the machinery where instalments remained unpaid and the assets were at risk. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110287