https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106902 A scheme of compromise and arrangement sanctioned without notice to secured creditors and on an application implying no secured creditors existed was liable to be reviewed and set aside because the mandatory requirements under section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and rule 80 of the Companies (Court) Rules were not complied with and material facts were suppressed. The court held that the earlier sanction had been procured by misleading the court and could not stand. It further held that false statements in judicial proceedings warranted adverse action, and although contempt proceedings were not pursued because of delay and recall of the order, compensatory costs were imposed on the deponent and the official liquidator. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:34:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106902 A scheme of compromise and arrangement sanctioned without notice to secured creditors and on an application implying no secured creditors existed was liable to be reviewed and set aside because the mandatory requirements under section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and rule 80 of the Companies (Court) Rules were not complied with and material facts were suppressed. The court held that the earlier sanction had been procured by misleading the court and could not stand. It further held that false statements in judicial proceedings warranted adverse action, and although contempt proceedings were not pursued because of delay and recall of the order, compensatory costs were imposed on the deponent and the official liquidator. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106902