9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 233 - SUPREME COURT). As all suits including that of recovery are not hit by Section 22 (1) of the SICA, but, only those suits which have the effect of execution, distress or like action against the properties of sick company, which would be hit by this provision. In a simple suit for recovery of money where the properties of sick company are not threatened by the proceedings including the interim ones such as appointment of receiver, execution, distress or the like, such suits could continue without the permission under Section 22. In the present suit for recovery, it cannot be said that the suit is of a nature which has the impact of or threat to the properties of the petitioner to affect the scheme of its revival.Thus, the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ger res integra, and is well laid by the Division Bench of this court in Saketh India Ltd. Vs. W. Diamond India Ltd., 2010 (119) DRJ 190 as also by the Supreme Court in Raheja Universal Ltd. Vs. NRC Ltd., (2012) 4 SCC 148. The ratio of the judgment in Saketh India Ltd. (supra) is that unless the dues are admitted by the sick company in a sanctioned scheme or is admitted before the court where the same suit is filed, no permission is required under Section 22 of SICA. It was held that before Section 22 could be invoked, the proceedings against the company are necessarily to be of the nature of execution, distress or the like . Paras 6 and 14 of the said judgment being relevant are reproduced here-in-under: 6. Courts, however, have always ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r way we look at the matter, there can be no logic in denying legal recourse to a party for proving its debt. In the event that at least the principal amount, or a substantial part of it stands admitted, either in the suit or by means of a mention in the Scheme placed before the BIFR, the aggrieved party must be permitted to prove its claim. In holding so, the only prejudice that we can conceive of is incurring expenditure in legal fees. When this is weighed against the interests of a person claiming that the company is indebted to it, the balance tilts in favour of the latter. A holistic reading of Section 22(1) of SICA makes it manifestly clear that Parliament's intention was to insulate sick companies only against proceedings for winding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion would completely annihilate and defeat the intendment of Parliament . 4. There being no credible admission by the petitioner of the amount in the present suit, in view of the aforesaid decision in Saketh India Ltd. (supra), no permission is required under Section 22 of SICA to continue the present suit. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raheja Universal Ltd. (supra) is that the proceedings, which are affected by Section 22 (1) of the SICA are the proceedings in the nature of execution, distress or the like, and that it was to depend upon the facts of each case as to whether the suit was hit by Section 22. In other words, all suits including that of recovery are not hit by Section 22 (1) of the SICA, but, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
