TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 1036
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he balance-sheet, the company has become a sick company. The company in its annual general body meeting adopted the accounts and filed a reference for rehabilitation before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA, 1985). It was registered as Case No. 191 of 1999. Further, the stocks of washing machines lifted by the applicant from the godown of the plaintiff were defective. The applicant-company received complaints from consumers with regard to the defects in the washing machines. After inspection, it was found out that the washing machines lifted from the godown were defective. The company had to remove and rectify the defects at its own....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount due from the defendant. The plaintiff was able to ascertain the information regarding the amount payable by the garnishee to the defendant in respect of a fire claim. The plaintiff filed Application No. 4454 of 1998 and obtained orders restraining the garnishee from making the payment. The defendant has not brought to the notice of this court at the earliest point of time about the BIFR proceedings. On the other hand, the defendant has taken time from this Court on the ground of settlement. 4. This court passed an order on 14-12-1999, restraining the garnishee from making the payment. Even then, the defendant has not brought to the notice of the court about the BIFR proceedings. At the time of taking delivery of all the consignment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... restraining the garnishee from paying the aforesaid amount to the applicant/defen-dant. Pursuant to the prohibitory order, it appears that the garnishee had deposited the aforesaid amount in the court on 10-1-2000. Now the applicant/defendant has filed this application on the ground that the company has become a sick company and there are proceedings before the BIFR and in view of section 22(1), the plaintiff-company is not entitled to file a suit for recovery of money and further proceedings have to be stayed. Apart from that, the money deposited by the garnishee in the court also has to be refunded to the defendant. 7. It is necessary to state that the defendant has not brought to the notice of the court about the proceedings in the B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the suit have to be stayed in view of section 22 and whether the defendant is entitled to get refund of the said amount. 8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on Gopalaiyar v. Thiruvengadam AIR 1918 Mad. 1158, relating to a decision under Order 37, rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code and this has no relevancy to the case on hand. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant relied on Patheja Bros. Forgings and Stamping v. ICICI Ltd. [2000] 8 JT 252, wherein it was observed as follows (page 25) : "Section 22 provides that no suit for the enforcement of a guarantee in respect of any loan or advance granted to the concerned industrial company will lie or can be proceeded with, without the consent of the Board or the Appellate....