https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214994 A sanctioned compromise or arrangement, once acted upon by the parties, could not be recalled at the instance of one party in the absence of any apparent jurisdictional error. The Court treated the sanction order as binding and held that objections based on alleged breach of mining rules had lost force after the State executed a rectification deed substituting the transferee's name. It further recognised that the supervisory powers under Sections 391 and 392 of the Companies Act, 1956 extend to directions needed for proper working of a compromise or arrangement, and permitted implementation of the scheme despite subsequent objections and changed circumstances. en-us Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Feb 2013 11:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214994 A sanctioned compromise or arrangement, once acted upon by the parties, could not be recalled at the instance of one party in the absence of any apparent jurisdictional error. The Court treated the sanction order as binding and held that objections based on alleged breach of mining rules had lost force after the State executed a rectification deed substituting the transferee's name. It further recognised that the supervisory powers under Sections 391 and 392 of the Companies Act, 1956 extend to directions needed for proper working of a compromise or arrangement, and permitted implementation of the scheme despite subsequent objections and changed circumstances. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214994