https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108636 A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under the sick industrial companies regime was treated as continuing to bar winding-up proceedings while implementation remained in progress, so the company petitions could not be admitted. The Court held that expiry of the payment period for one class of creditors did not by itself end the statutory protection where the scheme remained capable of modification and part of the rehabilitation process. It also read the limitation suspension under section 22(5) as operating during the period of statutory suspension, rejecting a narrow construction tied to consent applications. The notice objection under section 434 was not treated as fatal on the facts. en-us Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:47:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108636 A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under the sick industrial companies regime was treated as continuing to bar winding-up proceedings while implementation remained in progress, so the company petitions could not be admitted. The Court held that expiry of the payment period for one class of creditors did not by itself end the statutory protection where the scheme remained capable of modification and part of the rehabilitation process. It also read the limitation suspension under section 22(5) as operating during the period of statutory suspension, rejecting a narrow construction tied to consent applications. The notice objection under section 434 was not treated as fatal on the facts. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108636