https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103291 Consent terms and an undertaking incorporated into a company court order are enforceable as a decree under Section 634 of the Companies Act, 1956, so the proper remedy is execution under the Civil Procedure Code. Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for execution where the order is executable. Breach of the undertaking is not established unless the contingency activating personal liability is shown to have occurred. The arrangement also preserved the right to revive the petition if the terms were not implemented, reinforcing that enforcement must follow the decree-like process rather than contempt. en-us Tue, 19 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:24:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103291 Consent terms and an undertaking incorporated into a company court order are enforceable as a decree under Section 634 of the Companies Act, 1956, so the proper remedy is execution under the Civil Procedure Code. Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for execution where the order is executable. Breach of the undertaking is not established unless the contingency activating personal liability is shown to have occurred. The arrangement also preserved the right to revive the petition if the terms were not implemented, reinforcing that enforcement must follow the decree-like process rather than contempt. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 19 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103291