https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193862 Proceedings for recovery of possession against a tenant company did not require prior leave of the Company Court under Sections 442 and 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, because those provisions do not create an automatic bar in every proceeding and depend on the nature of the action. The eviction suit was also not barred by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, as eviction proceedings are outside its protection. The company's tenancy rights, by themselves, did not trigger a mandatory requirement of leave, and the request for stay was rejected. en-us Fri, 01 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Aug 2017 16:33:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193862 Proceedings for recovery of possession against a tenant company did not require prior leave of the Company Court under Sections 442 and 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, because those provisions do not create an automatic bar in every proceeding and depend on the nature of the action. The eviction suit was also not barred by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, as eviction proceedings are outside its protection. The company's tenancy rights, by themselves, did not trigger a mandatory requirement of leave, and the request for stay was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 01 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193862