https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313946 An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was rejected because the appellant showed no due diligence, gave no satisfactory explanation for years of inaction, and could not rely on mere alleged negligence of counsel to set aside the ex parte decree. Section 22 of SICA was held to stay coercive proceedings such as winding up, execution, distress, receiver appointment, or similar enforcement measures, but not to bar a simple money recovery suit under the ejusdem generis principle. The recovery action was therefore not barred, and the challenge to the ex parte decree also failed. en-us Fri, 06 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 May 2024 20:12:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313946 An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was rejected because the appellant showed no due diligence, gave no satisfactory explanation for years of inaction, and could not rely on mere alleged negligence of counsel to set aside the ex parte decree. Section 22 of SICA was held to stay coercive proceedings such as winding up, execution, distress, receiver appointment, or similar enforcement measures, but not to bar a simple money recovery suit under the ejusdem generis principle. The recovery action was therefore not barred, and the challenge to the ex parte decree also failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 06 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313946