https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219144 Section 22 of SICA does not bar a simple money-recovery suit unless the proceeding operates as execution, distress, or similar coercive action against the sick company's assets or impedes a revival scheme; the recovery action against the company and guarantor was therefore maintainable. A defence based mainly on the borrower's sickness status and technical objections, despite an express personal guarantee and clear averments of default, was treated as lacking bona fides, so leave to defend was refused. The contractual interest claim at 25% per annum was overridden by the Delhi amendment to the Usurious Loans Act, and interest was restricted to 12.5% per annum simple on the unsecured debt. en-us Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219144 Section 22 of SICA does not bar a simple money-recovery suit unless the proceeding operates as execution, distress, or similar coercive action against the sick company's assets or impedes a revival scheme; the recovery action against the company and guarantor was therefore maintainable. A defence based mainly on the borrower's sickness status and technical objections, despite an express personal guarantee and clear averments of default, was treated as lacking bona fides, so leave to defend was refused. The contractual interest claim at 25% per annum was overridden by the Delhi amendment to the Usurious Loans Act, and interest was restricted to 12.5% per annum simple on the unsecured debt. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219144