https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110843 A court-constituted fund expressly earmarked under a sanctioned scheme for pre-scheme unsecured creditors had to be used for that class alone. Claims already adjudicated by the Registrar and accepted in earlier orders were treated as final and could not be reopened without legal basis. Priority provisions under the Companies Act and the provident fund and ESI statutes did not permit workers to divert the earmarked fund where the company was continuing as a going concern, not undergoing actual winding up. The contrary direction for fresh adjudication was therefore inconsistent with the binding scheme and prior orders, and payment from the specially reserved fund was upheld. en-us Wed, 24 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110843 A court-constituted fund expressly earmarked under a sanctioned scheme for pre-scheme unsecured creditors had to be used for that class alone. Claims already adjudicated by the Registrar and accepted in earlier orders were treated as final and could not be reopened without legal basis. Priority provisions under the Companies Act and the provident fund and ESI statutes did not permit workers to divert the earmarked fund where the company was continuing as a going concern, not undergoing actual winding up. The contrary direction for fresh adjudication was therefore inconsistent with the binding scheme and prior orders, and payment from the specially reserved fund was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 24 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110843