https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108540 The SC held that a High Court cannot, in proceedings under the Companies Act, approve a sale of surplus land and issue consequential directions without following the statutory scheme for a compromise or arrangement; the sale order and related directions were therefore unsustainable. It also held that the exemption question under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act had to be reconsidered in accordance with law, as the pendency of company proceedings did not displace the Act's operation and the matter had to be tested against the applicable guidelines and facts. Further, repeal of the Act did not defeat vesting in West Bengal absent the required constitutional adoption, and encumbrances did not prevent vesting under section 10(3). en-us Fri, 04 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108540 The SC held that a High Court cannot, in proceedings under the Companies Act, approve a sale of surplus land and issue consequential directions without following the statutory scheme for a compromise or arrangement; the sale order and related directions were therefore unsustainable. It also held that the exemption question under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act had to be reconsidered in accordance with law, as the pendency of company proceedings did not displace the Act's operation and the matter had to be tested against the applicable guidelines and facts. Further, repeal of the Act did not defeat vesting in West Bengal absent the required constitutional adoption, and encumbrances did not prevent vesting under section 10(3). Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 04 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108540