https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330786 Where a company's debts had already been assigned to asset reconstruction companies, a later reference before the BIFR was barred by the second proviso to section 15(1) of SICA and was non-est in law. The Court held that this proviso operates independently and does not require the 75% condition found in the third proviso, so the statutory bar applied on the admitted facts. Because the reference was incompetent, the company could not invoke section 22 to stay the winding-up proceedings. The winding-up petitions were therefore allowed to proceed, and the company was found commercially insolvent and ordered to be wound up. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Aug 2016 14:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330786 Where a company's debts had already been assigned to asset reconstruction companies, a later reference before the BIFR was barred by the second proviso to section 15(1) of SICA and was non-est in law. The Court held that this proviso operates independently and does not require the 75% condition found in the third proviso, so the statutory bar applied on the admitted facts. Because the reference was incompetent, the company could not invoke section 22 to stay the winding-up proceedings. The winding-up petitions were therefore allowed to proceed, and the company was found commercially insolvent and ordered to be wound up. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 01 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330786