https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113377 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as applying only where the liability in question was shown to be covered by, or reflected in, the revival scheme before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Mere pendency of sickness proceedings was held insufficient to bar a suit or justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The same principle was extended to execution: after a decree, enforcement steps could not claim statutory protection unless the decretal debt was shown to fall within the sanctioned scheme or other statutory cover, and consent from the Board or Appellate Authority was the proper course where protection was sought. en-us Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Oct 2014 12:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113377 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as applying only where the liability in question was shown to be covered by, or reflected in, the revival scheme before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Mere pendency of sickness proceedings was held insufficient to bar a suit or justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The same principle was extended to execution: after a decree, enforcement steps could not claim statutory protection unless the decretal debt was shown to fall within the sanctioned scheme or other statutory cover, and consent from the Board or Appellate Authority was the proper course where protection was sought. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113377