https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114015 The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Central Government's loan finance scheme, the State Government's refusal to provide guarantees, and the validity of the recovery certificate issued by the Cane Commissioner. The court found that Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, did not protect the petitioner from liabilities incurred during continued operations. Consequently, the petition was rejected with costs, as the court found no merit in the petitioner's claims. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114015 The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Central Government's loan finance scheme, the State Government's refusal to provide guarantees, and the validity of the recovery certificate issued by the Cane Commissioner. The court found that Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, did not protect the petitioner from liabilities incurred during continued operations. Consequently, the petition was rejected with costs, as the court found no merit in the petitioner's claims. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114015