https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110891 A sick industrial company already under BIFR rehabilitation could not be taken through a parallel scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act, 1956. The Court held that the proposed deferral and restructuring of payments to first charge holders fell within the remedial rehabilitation measures contemplated by sections 18 and 19 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and that section 32 gave that Act overriding effect over any inconsistent procedure. As the Board was already seized of the matter and had appointed an operating agency under section 17(3), the company court could not direct convening of a creditors' meeting under sections 391 to 394 at that stage. en-us Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:49:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110891 A sick industrial company already under BIFR rehabilitation could not be taken through a parallel scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act, 1956. The Court held that the proposed deferral and restructuring of payments to first charge holders fell within the remedial rehabilitation measures contemplated by sections 18 and 19 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and that section 32 gave that Act overriding effect over any inconsistent procedure. As the Board was already seized of the matter and had appointed an operating agency under section 17(3), the company court could not direct convening of a creditors' meeting under sections 391 to 394 at that stage. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110891