Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether section 392 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be invoked to obtain a direction for payment of an alleged debt, instead of being used only for supervising and giving effect to the sanctioned compromise or arrangement.
Analysis: Section 392 confers supervisory power on the High Court to ensure the effective working of a compromise or arrangement sanctioned under section 391, including the power to give directions or modify the scheme where necessary for its proper working. The provision is not intended to provide an independent remedy for adjudication or recovery of disputed monetary claims. Where the applicant merely seeks payment of an alleged debt, and there is no case that the sanctioned scheme is not working properly or requires modification for its implementation, the application falls outside the scope of section 392.
Conclusion: The request to use section 392 as a mechanism for recovery of the alleged dues was untenable and failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable on the asserted basis and stood rejected, leaving the order under challenge undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 392 of the Companies Act, 1956 is confined to securing the proper working of a sanctioned compromise or arrangement and cannot be invoked as an independent remedy for recovery of a disputed debt.