https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269220 A collateral application to restrain implementation of a confirmed winding up order was treated as not maintainable because it suppressed the earlier winding up and appellate orders, omitted affected creditors, and was filed without demonstrated authority from the board after winding up. The Court also noted that pendency of a reference and inquiry before BIFR under SICA did not justify staying the Official Liquidator's possession proceedings, since those steps implemented binding orders already made and affirmed in appeal. The request to interfere with the winding up process was therefore rejected and the earlier directions were left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:17:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269220 A collateral application to restrain implementation of a confirmed winding up order was treated as not maintainable because it suppressed the earlier winding up and appellate orders, omitted affected creditors, and was filed without demonstrated authority from the board after winding up. The Court also noted that pendency of a reference and inquiry before BIFR under SICA did not justify staying the Official Liquidator's possession proceedings, since those steps implemented binding orders already made and affirmed in appeal. The request to interfere with the winding up process was therefore rejected and the earlier directions were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269220