<?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>1993 (12) TMI 236 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288621</link>
    <description>A mere reference filed before BIFR under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not by itself attract the Section 22(1) bar; the bar applies only when an enquiry under Section 16 is pending or a scheme under Sections 17 is under preparation, consideration, or implementation. On the facts, BIFR had scrutinised the reference, allotted a case number, required defects to be cured, and issued notice to affected parties, showing application of mind and commencement of enquiry. Section 22(1) therefore operated, and the company court could not proceed with the winding-up petition, which was directed to remain in abeyance until BIFR decided the reference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:58:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (12) TMI 236 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288621</link>
      <description>A mere reference filed before BIFR under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not by itself attract the Section 22(1) bar; the bar applies only when an enquiry under Section 16 is pending or a scheme under Sections 17 is under preparation, consideration, or implementation. On the facts, BIFR had scrutinised the reference, allotted a case number, required defects to be cured, and issued notice to affected parties, showing application of mind and commencement of enquiry. Section 22(1) therefore operated, and the company court could not proceed with the winding-up petition, which was directed to remain in abeyance until BIFR decided the reference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>