https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103716 The court rejected the application for approval of the lease agreement under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, due to the non-viability of the proposal, considering the company's substantial dues, the recommendation for winding up by the BIFR and the Appellate Authority, and the insufficient lease amount offered compared to outstanding dues. The court prioritized the interests of all stakeholders, including creditors and the public, over the temporary benefit to workmen, ultimately leading to the rejection of the lease proposal. en-us Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:39:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103716 The court rejected the application for approval of the lease agreement under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, due to the non-viability of the proposal, considering the company's substantial dues, the recommendation for winding up by the BIFR and the Appellate Authority, and the insufficient lease amount offered compared to outstanding dues. The court prioritized the interests of all stakeholders, including creditors and the public, over the temporary benefit to workmen, ultimately leading to the rejection of the lease proposal. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103716