https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256689 A compromise or arrangement under the Companies Act is directed to the identified class of creditors, with the Company Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction rather than appellate review of commercial wisdom. A registered hypothecation charge remained subsisting because the consent arbitral award did not expressly extinguish or release the security, and recovery proceedings or a decree-like award alone did not destroy the underlying charge. Order II Rule 2 and res judicata were inapplicable because the arbitral proceedings and scheme proceedings involved different causes of action and issues. On that basis, the creditor continued to fall within the secured creditor class and was bound by the scheme. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Sep 2017 17:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256689 A compromise or arrangement under the Companies Act is directed to the identified class of creditors, with the Company Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction rather than appellate review of commercial wisdom. A registered hypothecation charge remained subsisting because the consent arbitral award did not expressly extinguish or release the security, and recovery proceedings or a decree-like award alone did not destroy the underlying charge. Order II Rule 2 and res judicata were inapplicable because the arbitral proceedings and scheme proceedings involved different causes of action and issues. On that basis, the creditor continued to fall within the secured creditor class and was bound by the scheme. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256689