https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111313 Divergent co-ordinate Bench interpretations of section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 created uncertainty over whether the protection for guarantors applies only to suits or also to recovery proceedings. One line of authority confined the bar to suits, while another read "suit" more broadly to support the rehabilitation process of the sick company. Because the conflicting views remained unresolved within existing precedent, the Court considered it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for authoritative settlement of the interpretation issue. en-us Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111313 Divergent co-ordinate Bench interpretations of section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 created uncertainty over whether the protection for guarantors applies only to suits or also to recovery proceedings. One line of authority confined the bar to suits, while another read "suit" more broadly to support the rehabilitation process of the sick company. Because the conflicting views remained unresolved within existing precedent, the Court considered it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for authoritative settlement of the interpretation issue. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111313