https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101214 Section 391 was treated as enabling, so a creditor or member could move the court even while the company was in liquidation; however, sanction of a compromise or arrangement still depended on prior approval by the requisite majority under section 391(2). The company court had no power to examine alleged mala fides or arbitrariness in the secured creditors' refusal of consent, to compel reconsideration, or to sanction the scheme without that approval. Section 392 could not be used to modify or salvage a scheme unless a validly sanctioned arrangement already existed under section 391. The governing principle is that approval under section 391(2) is a condition precedent to the court's jurisdiction under sections 391 and 392. en-us Fri, 23 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:47:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101214 Section 391 was treated as enabling, so a creditor or member could move the court even while the company was in liquidation; however, sanction of a compromise or arrangement still depended on prior approval by the requisite majority under section 391(2). The company court had no power to examine alleged mala fides or arbitrariness in the secured creditors' refusal of consent, to compel reconsideration, or to sanction the scheme without that approval. Section 392 could not be used to modify or salvage a scheme unless a validly sanctioned arrangement already existed under section 391. The governing principle is that approval under section 391(2) is a condition precedent to the court's jurisdiction under sections 391 and 392. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 23 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101214