https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339349 The Supreme Court held that the Registrar, Secretary, and Chairman of the Board lacked jurisdiction to refuse registration of a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (SICA). It was emphasized that such adjudicatory power rests solely with the Board. The Court ruled that a winding-up order did not preclude registration under SICA, and the reference was deemed pending before the Board, subject to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court disposed of the appeal, allowing the respondent company to seek remedies under Section 252 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, with further interpretation left to the National Company Law Tribunal. en-us Tue, 21 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339349 The Supreme Court held that the Registrar, Secretary, and Chairman of the Board lacked jurisdiction to refuse registration of a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (SICA). It was emphasized that such adjudicatory power rests solely with the Board. The Court ruled that a winding-up order did not preclude registration under SICA, and the reference was deemed pending before the Board, subject to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court disposed of the appeal, allowing the respondent company to seek remedies under Section 252 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, with further interpretation left to the National Company Law Tribunal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339349