https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257571 A post-winding up reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 could not stay or suspend liquidation once the winding up order had already been passed, because the company court had become functus officio on that issue and the revival regime operated only before or during subsisting seisin of the matter. The stay order was also unsustainable on the facts: the record showed belated reliance on the sick company framework after earlier unsuccessful efforts to stall sale and liquidation, and the company's conduct reflected suppression and an attempt to forestall the process. The impugned stay was set aside and the winding up was allowed to continue. en-us Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:55:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257571 A post-winding up reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 could not stay or suspend liquidation once the winding up order had already been passed, because the company court had become functus officio on that issue and the revival regime operated only before or during subsisting seisin of the matter. The stay order was also unsustainable on the facts: the record showed belated reliance on the sick company framework after earlier unsuccessful efforts to stall sale and liquidation, and the company's conduct reflected suppression and an attempt to forestall the process. The impugned stay was set aside and the winding up was allowed to continue. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257571