https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110881 Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was construed narrowly and held not to bar directions for repayment of matured deposits under section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court treated a matured deposit as distinct from a loan or a suit for money recovery, and held that depositors' claims for return of their money did not fall within the statutory suspension meant to protect the company in BIFR proceedings. On that basis, the direction requiring repayment was upheld and the appeal was liable to be rejected. en-us Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:15:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110881 Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was construed narrowly and held not to bar directions for repayment of matured deposits under section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court treated a matured deposit as distinct from a loan or a suit for money recovery, and held that depositors' claims for return of their money did not fall within the statutory suspension meant to protect the company in BIFR proceedings. On that basis, the direction requiring repayment was upheld and the appeal was liable to be rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110881