<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (7) TMI 345 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329747</link>
    <description>Where a reference is duly registered before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and enquiry is initiated, Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars further coercive action and overrides inconsistent winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956. The Court reiterated that the special rehabilitation regime is designed to protect revival efforts before asset recovery steps continue, so a prior winding-up order does not displace the statutory bar. After rehabilitation proceedings were undertaken, a scheme was sanctioned and dues were addressed within that framework, leaving no live controversy for adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 345 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329747</link>
      <description>Where a reference is duly registered before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and enquiry is initiated, Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars further coercive action and overrides inconsistent winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956. The Court reiterated that the special rehabilitation regime is designed to protect revival efforts before asset recovery steps continue, so a prior winding-up order does not displace the statutory bar. After rehabilitation proceedings were undertaken, a scheme was sanctioned and dues were addressed within that framework, leaving no live controversy for adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>