<?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>2000 (2) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47260</link>
    <description>Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act suspends recovery proceedings against a company declared sick under Section 17 in respect of dues pending when the statutory process begins. Liabilities arising after the relevant sick-company orders are treated separately from pre-reference dues. Because the recovery action here concerned dues that arose before the reference, the statutory embargo applied and independent recovery could not continue outside the scheme under the Act. The challenge to rejection of permission to sell detained material therefore became infructuous once the sick-company declaration and suspension provisions operated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:10:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47260</link>
      <description>Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act suspends recovery proceedings against a company declared sick under Section 17 in respect of dues pending when the statutory process begins. Liabilities arising after the relevant sick-company orders are treated separately from pre-reference dues. Because the recovery action here concerned dues that arose before the reference, the statutory embargo applied and independent recovery could not continue outside the scheme under the Act. The challenge to rejection of permission to sell detained material therefore became infructuous once the sick-company declaration and suspension provisions operated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>