Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short “the SICA). - Application for protection of sec.22 (1) of SICA by Guarantors - whether maintainable - Settled law - if the action filed by the Bank comes with in the ambit of term suit, he can obtain protection - if the action of Bank is in the nature of proceedings , he can not avail the protection - in this case , he filed application in proceedings , High court rightly dismissed the application =2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS
whether the
appellants who are Directors and Guarantors of a sick company and are
entitled to get the protection of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial
Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short “the SICA). =
Appellants, who are the guarantors, can obtain the protection of Section 22(1) of SICA only if the action filed by the bank comes within the ambit of the term ‘suit’. If the action filed by the respondent bank in the nature of ‘proceedings’ and not a ‘suit’, protection under Section 22(1) would not be available, especially, when the appellants are guarantors. =
This Court, in KSL and Industries Limited (supra) took the view that
even though both the conflicting statutes SICA and Recovery of Debts Due to
Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the “RDDB”) contain a
non-obstante clause, in case of conflict the RDDB Act, 1993 will prevail
over SICA, so far as public revenue recoveries are concerned.
This Court
also emphasized that the liability of surety or guarantor is co-extensive
with that of the principal debtor in Kailash Nath Agarwal and others
(supra).
In Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited (supra) this Court
reiterated the term ‘suit’ have to be confined in the context of sub-
section (1) of Section 22 of SICA to those actions which are dealt with
under the Code and not in the comprehensive over-arching proceedings so as
to apply to any original proceedings before any legal forum. The term
‘suit’ would apply only to proceedings in civil court and not actions or
recovery proceedings filed by banks and financial institutions before a
tribunal such as DRT.
In our view, all the legal points raised by the appellants stand
covered by the Judgments referred to hereinbefore and hence a further
examination of the same is unnecessary. The appeal, therefore, lacks
merits and the same is dismissed, however, there will be no order as to
costs.