Jaspal Singh,j. (Oral)

( 1 ) THE respondent, under whom the petitioner company is admittedly a tenant, instituted a suit for possession and for recovery of mesne profits/damages etc. In response to the same the petitioner company moved an application under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act) alleging that since an enquiry had already been held under section 16 and a scheme was already under preparation or consideration within the meaning of section 17 of the said Act therefore, the suit was not maintainable. The learned Additional District Judge, however, did not agree. He dismissed the application. Hence this civil revision.

( 2 ) THE perusal of the application under section 22 of the Act would go to show that the company had challenged the maintainability of the suit only so far as it related to the relief for mesne profits/damages etc. It did not say that the suit for possession too could not lie. I am mentioning this because now it has been argued before me that even the suit for possession would not lie. Thus a submission has been made which was conspicuous by its absence in the application. I may also mention

Click Here to Read the rest of this document