<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (7) TMI 362 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110443</link>
    <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 suspends coercive recovery steps, including execution, distress, attachment and auction, against the properties of an industrial company while a reference under section 16 is pending, a scheme under section 17 is under preparation or implementation, or an appeal under section 25 is pending, unless prior consent is obtained from the competent authority. On the stated facts, municipal property tax recovery measures were initiated during the pendency of the reference and later the appeal, so the recovery action was treated as barred and the impugned notices were liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:10:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 362 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110443</link>
      <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 suspends coercive recovery steps, including execution, distress, attachment and auction, against the properties of an industrial company while a reference under section 16 is pending, a scheme under section 17 is under preparation or implementation, or an appeal under section 25 is pending, unless prior consent is obtained from the competent authority. On the stated facts, municipal property tax recovery measures were initiated during the pendency of the reference and later the appeal, so the recovery action was treated as barred and the impugned notices were liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>