https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198969 Equitable interim relief under Section 9 was denied where the petitioner had suppressed earlier Section 17 proceedings and the dismissal of an identical application, because nondisclosure of material facts defeats discretionary protection. A restraint operating against the assets and prospective receipts of a sick company was held to attract the statutory embargo under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, absent the required consent. Pre-award attachment or preservation was also refused because such drastic relief requires a clear showing of likely dissipation or removal of property, which was not established before the arbitral claims were adjudicated. en-us Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 14:32:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198969 Equitable interim relief under Section 9 was denied where the petitioner had suppressed earlier Section 17 proceedings and the dismissal of an identical application, because nondisclosure of material facts defeats discretionary protection. A restraint operating against the assets and prospective receipts of a sick company was held to attract the statutory embargo under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, absent the required consent. Pre-award attachment or preservation was also refused because such drastic relief requires a clear showing of likely dissipation or removal of property, which was not established before the arbitral claims were adjudicated. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198969