https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171068 A registered reference before BIFR during the pendency of an appeal against a winding up order attracted Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, because appellate proceedings are a continuation of the original matter and the later registration changed the legal position. The company could maintain the appeal in support of the statutory revival process, and the appointment of an Official Liquidator did not by itself defeat that remedy. The special rehabilitation scheme prevailed over the general winding up regime, so the winding up proceedings had to remain in abeyance pending disposal of the sick-company proceedings. en-us Thu, 20 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Feb 2019 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171068 A registered reference before BIFR during the pendency of an appeal against a winding up order attracted Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, because appellate proceedings are a continuation of the original matter and the later registration changed the legal position. The company could maintain the appeal in support of the statutory revival process, and the appointment of an Official Liquidator did not by itself defeat that remedy. The special rehabilitation scheme prevailed over the general winding up regime, so the winding up proceedings had to remain in abeyance pending disposal of the sick-company proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171068