https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101749 A contributory was held not entitled as of right to notice of an application for stay of winding up proceedings under rule 116, and could not challenge the stay on that basis. Petitioning creditors, as directly affected parties, were entitled to notice; where a stay was granted without notice to them and the attached conditions were not complied with, the order was liable to recall. A stay under section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 is an exceptional discretionary measure that can continue only if its conditions are faithfully observed and the company's affairs are conducted bona fide under proper supervision. Non-compliance and misuse justify withdrawal of the stay and continuation of winding up. en-us Mon, 30 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:16:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101749 A contributory was held not entitled as of right to notice of an application for stay of winding up proceedings under rule 116, and could not challenge the stay on that basis. Petitioning creditors, as directly affected parties, were entitled to notice; where a stay was granted without notice to them and the attached conditions were not complied with, the order was liable to recall. A stay under section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 is an exceptional discretionary measure that can continue only if its conditions are faithfully observed and the company's affairs are conducted bona fide under proper supervision. Non-compliance and misuse justify withdrawal of the stay and continuation of winding up. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 30 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101749