https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218631 Unsecured creditors were treated as a single class for scheme sanction and voting purposes because the relevant test is commonality of interest and similar rights; a decree in favour of one unsecured creditor did not make that creditor a separate class or secured creditor, and the pari passu principle required treatment. Section 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 was confined to company-law proceedings and could not be used to stay, quash or effectively compound criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which require bilateral consent for compounding. The pledged shares were also held not liable to forfeiture because the settlement and scheme documents contemplated a different treatment of those shares. en-us Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218631 Unsecured creditors were treated as a single class for scheme sanction and voting purposes because the relevant test is commonality of interest and similar rights; a decree in favour of one unsecured creditor did not make that creditor a separate class or secured creditor, and the pari passu principle required treatment. Section 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 was confined to company-law proceedings and could not be used to stay, quash or effectively compound criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which require bilateral consent for compounding. The pledged shares were also held not liable to forfeiture because the settlement and scheme documents contemplated a different treatment of those shares. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218631