https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99388 Sections 442 and 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 had to be read together to advance expeditious determination of claims in winding-up proceedings. The power to stay proceedings under section 442(b) was discretionary, not mandatory, because the word "may" conferred authority rather than an obligation. A stay could not be granted mechanically merely because an application was maintainable; the court had to consider the totality of facts and refuse relief where the request was aimed at delaying adjudication. The company judge's refusal to stay proceedings was a proper exercise of discretion, and appellate interference was unjustified. en-us Thu, 10 Feb 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99388 Sections 442 and 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 had to be read together to advance expeditious determination of claims in winding-up proceedings. The power to stay proceedings under section 442(b) was discretionary, not mandatory, because the word "may" conferred authority rather than an obligation. A stay could not be granted mechanically merely because an application was maintainable; the court had to consider the totality of facts and refuse relief where the request was aimed at delaying adjudication. The company judge's refusal to stay proceedings was a proper exercise of discretion, and appellate interference was unjustified. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 10 Feb 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99388