Judgment :- J. B. KOSHY J. - This petition is filed under sections 433 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the first respondent-company. At the time when the petition was filed, a scheme for rehabilitation was already sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on February 27, 1997, as the BIFR declared the company a sick industrial company within the meaning of section 3(1)(o) of the Act by proceedings dated March 25, 1996. The BIFR notified failure of the scheme sanctioned on February 27, 1997, and the operating agency was directed for a new proposal by proceedings dated March 7, 2000, and it is still under consideration. When the company petition was filed, scheme sanctioned was under implementation as can be seen from annexures I to III in R.P. No. 303 of 2000. The BIFR has confirmed that proceedings are still pending. Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), states as follows : "22.(1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loan or advance granted to the industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority."* At the time when the claim petition was filed, no consent of the BIFR was obtained as provided under section 22(1) of the Act. Therefore, this proceeding filed without the consent of BIFR will not lie. Therefore, this proceeding filed without the consent of BIFR will not lie. (see Tarun Shah v. Perfect Thread Mills Ltd., Testeels Ltd. v. Radhaben Ranchhodlal Charitable Trust, and High Temp Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Satya Steel Strips (P.) Ltd. If there was no bar under section 22(1) at the time of filing of the company petition, the proceeding need only be suspended. But, here, at the time of filing of the company petition itself, bar under section 22(1) would apply as scheme sanctioned by the BIFR was under implementation. Therefore, this proceeding will not lie (not maintainable) in view of the clear provisions of section 22(1) of the Act. I also note that under section 20 of the Act, the BIFR is given power to form an opinion for winding up of the company and forward the same to the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. So, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner in approaching the BIFR or filing the petition after the bar under section 22(1) is lifted, this company petition is dismissed.