9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The said suit is pending before the Additional District Judge, Delhi. In the said Suit an application came to be filed by the petitioner/defendant contending, inter alia, that the defendant-company has become sick and accordingly, its case has been referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under section 15 of the Act. It was further stated in the said application that the reference has since been registered by the BIFR and that pursuant thereto the Board has declared the defendant to be a sick company and IFCI has been appointed as the operating agent. 2. The aforesaid application was contested by the respondent by contend ing, inter alia, that the provisions of section 22 are not applicable to the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the Industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een reckoned or included in the sanctioned scheme. It was also held that section 22(1) is also not attracted to the dues incurred after the date of sanctioned scheme. This Court in Sirmor Sudburg Auto Ltd's case (supra) took notice of the aforesaid factors laid down by the Supreme Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court there could be no two opinions on the effect thereof. There is no scope to agitate that the suit seeking for eviction and recovery of posses sion should be stayed in view of the provisions of section 22. Therefore, section 22 cannot stand as a hurdle in the way of a suit for possession. This, however, is not the end of the matter, for the present suit was also instituted for reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
