<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1316 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305006</link>
    <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was read broadly to bar further judicial steps after arguments are heard in a suit against a sick industrial company, including preparation of the judgment, fixing the pronouncement date, and pronouncing judgment in open court. The Court held that, under Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a reserved judgment is not complete until formally pronounced, so the suit continues to be &quot;proceeded with further&quot; until that stage. Because the Act&#039;s non-obstante protection prevails over the Code, the Court upheld the stay and held that pronouncement could not occur without permission.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2022 15:26:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1316 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305006</link>
      <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was read broadly to bar further judicial steps after arguments are heard in a suit against a sick industrial company, including preparation of the judgment, fixing the pronouncement date, and pronouncing judgment in open court. The Court held that, under Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a reserved judgment is not complete until formally pronounced, so the suit continues to be &quot;proceeded with further&quot; until that stage. Because the Act&#039;s non-obstante protection prevails over the Code, the Court upheld the stay and held that pronouncement could not occur without permission.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>