The main legal point established in the judgment is that the protection under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 extends to execution proceedings and suits for recovery of money, and that the proceedings cannot continue without the consent of the Board or the appellate authority.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the present petition challenging the order dated 1.3.2007, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar, whereby the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) for stay of execution proceedings was accepted and auction of the property of respondent No. 1 -judgment debtor and further proceedings were stayed.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for recovery of price for supply of goods, which was decreed by the trial court on 10.2.2005. Even the appeal filed by respondent No. 1-JD was dismissed on 28.7.2005, meaning thereby that the decree under execution attained finality. The petitioner filed execution of the decree. The property in question was attached under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. In the execution, respondent No. 1-JD filed objections which were dismissed on 2.6.2005. The objections filed second time were also dismissed on 31.1.2006. While the execution proceedings were in progress, respondent No. 1-JD filed an application under Section 22 of the Act praying for stay of execution proceedings. The same having been accepted by the learned court below vide impugned order, the petitioner-decree holder is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very basis on which the execution proceedings were stayed having wiped off with the dismissal of the reference by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, the BIFR7) on 4.8.2008, the petition deserves to be allowed without any further arguments as no protection under the Act is available to respondent No. 1. He further submitted that as far as proceedings before the BIFR are concerned, any order passed therein could not have any bearing on the rights of the petitioner, as the petitioner is not a party before the BIFR. It will have effect only on the persons who are party before the BIFR. Though a decree had already been passed against respondent No. 1, still respondent No. 1 deliberately did not implead the petitioner as one of the parties before the BIFR. A perusal of the order passed by the BIFR shows that it is only the secured creditors who were party there.

4. Referring to Section 22 of the Act, the submission is that it is in two parts. Execution of a money decree is not covered under its protection. The second part deals with only the loans and advances of secured creditors. In the case of the petitioner, it is not a loan or advance, rather, it is only the price for supply of goods. The word "execution", as is used in the first part of the section is only with regard to any execution under the company law and not the execution of a decree of a Civil Court. As far as execution is concerned, sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Act would be applicable and not sub-section (1) thereof.In the second part of Section 22(1) of the Act, it is only the suit which is barred and not the execution thereof. In the present case, what was sought to be stayed and has been stayed vide impugned order, is execution of the money decree.

5. Referring to the judgment of this Court in M/s Ashiana Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, AIR 2008 P&H119, it was submitted that this Court held that a suit for recovery of dues for consumption of electricity was held to be maintainable and could not be stayed in terms of Section 22 of the Act. Honble the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. New Look Rubbers (P) Ltd. and others, JT 2008(6) SC 224 opined that Section 22(1) of the Act is in two parts. One deals with execution with reference to Companies Act of the secured creditors, whereas the second applies to the suits where the section provides for stay of suit for recovery of money. The execution proceedings are not provided therein. Further reliance was placed upon Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. v.