9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 in relation to legal proceedings and recovery of damages and mesne profits. Detailed Analysis: 1. The revision petition was filed against the order dismissing an application under section 22 of the Act seeking recovery of possession and damages. The petitioner claimed to be a sick company referred to the BIFR. The respondent contested, arguing section 22 does not apply to the suit. The Addl. District Judge dismissed the application, leading to the present petition. 2. The petitioner argued that damages/mesne profits claimed by the plaintiff are pre-sickness liabilities and should be included in the Scheme, thus not recoverable under section 22. The respondent contended that section 22 does not cover suits seeking eviction or damages/mesne profits. 3. The Supreme Court's interpretation of section 22 was referenced, emphasizing the need for dues to be included in the sanctioned scheme for legal proceedings to be suspended. Previous judgments were cited to support the arguments presented by both parties. 4. The Supreme Court's decision in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd v. Church of South India Trust Association highlighted the suspension of legal proceedings during the inquiry and scheme implementation. The court emphasized the importance of dues being included in the sanctioned scheme for section 22 to apply. 5. The court reiterated that section 22 does not bar suits for possession but may affect recovery of damages/mesne profits if not included in the sanctioned scheme. Without evidence of a sanctioned scheme including such dues, the suit cannot be stayed solely for their recovery. 6. The Additional District Judge's decision aligns with the legal principles established by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for dues to be part of the rehabilitation scheme for section 22 to apply. The court found no error in the trial court's jurisdiction and dismissed the petition accordingly.
|
