https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110257 Section 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed as permitting a stay only of civil proceedings having a pecuniary nexus with a proposed compromise or arrangement, so criminal prosecutions, including proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were outside its scope. The protection was also held unavailable to directors and sureties/guarantors who were not parties to the scheme and whose liability was independently enforceable. In addition, where a winding-up petition remained pending, notice of a stay application was required to be given to petitioning creditors under Rule 71 of the Company Court Rules, 1959; an ex parte stay obtained without such notice was therefore improper. en-us Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:54:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110257 Section 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed as permitting a stay only of civil proceedings having a pecuniary nexus with a proposed compromise or arrangement, so criminal prosecutions, including proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were outside its scope. The protection was also held unavailable to directors and sureties/guarantors who were not parties to the scheme and whose liability was independently enforceable. In addition, where a winding-up petition remained pending, notice of a stay application was required to be given to petitioning creditors under Rule 71 of the Company Court Rules, 1959; an ex parte stay obtained without such notice was therefore improper. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110257