https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218764 A belated review application before the DRT was held non-entertainable because it was filed beyond the period prescribed under Rule 5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, and no sufficient basis for condonation was shown. Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was construed as protecting against a civil court suit for recovery, but not extending to original bank recovery proceedings before the DRT. On that contextual reading, guarantors could not invoke the section 22(1) bar to resist tribunal recovery proceedings, and the challenge failed on both grounds. en-us Wed, 02 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 25 Nov 2012 08:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218764 A belated review application before the DRT was held non-entertainable because it was filed beyond the period prescribed under Rule 5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, and no sufficient basis for condonation was shown. Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was construed as protecting against a civil court suit for recovery, but not extending to original bank recovery proceedings before the DRT. On that contextual reading, guarantors could not invoke the section 22(1) bar to resist tribunal recovery proceedings, and the challenge failed on both grounds. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 02 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218764