https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96761 A scheme of arrangement sanctioned by a competent court remains binding on decree-holder depositors where the scheme expressly treats them as creditors, even if they had already sued or obtained decrees. The absence of a separate meeting of decree-holder depositors, even if assumed, was only a procedural irregularity and did not render the sanction without jurisdiction. Because the sanctioned order had not been set aside or modified, the executing court was bound to give effect to it and could not go behind the order to examine alleged defects in class representation or meeting procedure. The decree-holder could not execute the decree contrary to the subsisting scheme. en-us Mon, 31 Jan 1938 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:10:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96761 A scheme of arrangement sanctioned by a competent court remains binding on decree-holder depositors where the scheme expressly treats them as creditors, even if they had already sued or obtained decrees. The absence of a separate meeting of decree-holder depositors, even if assumed, was only a procedural irregularity and did not render the sanction without jurisdiction. Because the sanctioned order had not been set aside or modified, the executing court was bound to give effect to it and could not go behind the order to examine alleged defects in class representation or meeting procedure. The decree-holder could not execute the decree contrary to the subsisting scheme. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 31 Jan 1938 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96761