9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmation/modification of an ad interim writ granted by this Court (Vacation Judge) on 23-12-2002, directing parties to maintain status quo as it existed on 23-12-2002. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the record of the case, I am of the considered view that a prima facie case is made out by the petitioner on the strength of law laid down by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advanced by them to the petitioner amounting to rupees 36,01,12,702. It is complained that the respondents have attached the petitioner s running industrial unit by putting locks in the petitioners industrial premises causing immense loss and injury to the petitioner in running the unit. It is the case of petitioner that the petitioner company has applied to BIFR under section 15 of SICA for bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the company are entitled to proceed against the assets of the company for realisation of their dues unless consented to by the BIFR as per section 22 of SICA for being proceeded with against the company. In other words, section 22, ibid., creates a bar for realisation of the dues and unless permitted by the BIFR, no coercive action is possible. So what is decisive is the prior consent of BI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an ad interim writ against the respondents jointly and severally that no effect shall be given to attachment notices dated 25-7-2002 (Annexure P-7) issued by respondent No. 1 Tehsildar for recovery of Rs.36,01,12,697 against the petitioner as also against any of the assets/properties belonging to petitioner. The effect of this direction will be that all/any type of restraint, if put, by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
