1997 (10) TMI 324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he respondent-company on the ground that the respondent-company is indebted to the petitioner-company to the extent of Rs. 5,45,677 as per the statement of accounts of the petitioner-company with the respondent for the periods of 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. The last payment which was made by the respondent-company of Rs. 60,000 was in the month of November 1994, leaving a balance as on 11-12-1995 to the extent of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,45,677 and by adding interest on that amount up to 15-1-1997, the total indebtedness comes to Rs. 7,78,431. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 4. Notice before admission was given to the respondent-company. In answer to the show-cause notice, the respondent-company filed its counter and denie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Dy. CTO v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals JT 1997 (3) SC 660: "...The language of section 22 of the Act is certainly wide. But, in the totality of the circumstances, the safeguard is only against the impediment, that is likely to be caused in the implementation of the scheme. If that be so, only the liability or amounts covered by the scheme will be taken in, by section 22 of the Act. So, we are of the view that though the language of section 22 of the Act is of wide import regarding suspension of legal proceedings from the moment an inquiry is started, till after the implementation of the scheme or the disposal of an appeal under section 25 of the Act, it will be reasonable to hold that the bar or embargo envisaged in section 22(1) of Ac....