Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 the Court had power to restrain execution proceedings against a company where a scheme of compromise or arrangement had been sanctioned under section 153 of the Companies Act.
Analysis: Section 153 contemplates a compromise or arrangement agreed to by the requisite majority of creditors and, once sanctioned by the Court, makes that arrangement binding on the creditors and the company. The Court rejected the contention that its power to stay proceedings was confined to the winding-up context alone. Since the decree-holder was already held bound by the sanctioned scheme and was seeking to defeat it by executing his decree in another court, the Court found it necessary to protect the scheme from being nullified.
Conclusion: The Court held that it had jurisdiction to stay the execution proceedings and to grant an injunction restraining further execution so long as the scheme remained in force.
Final Conclusion: The execution proceedings were restrained to preserve the binding effect of the sanctioned scheme of arrangement.
Ratio Decidendi: A sanctioned compromise or arrangement under section 153 of the Companies Act binds the creditors and the company, and the Court may restrain execution proceedings that would defeat the scheme.