https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183324 A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 binds creditors for implementation, and Section 22 suspends enforcement during the rehabilitation period, but it does not itself authorise compulsory reduction of an unsecured creditor's contractual debt. The absence of a requirement to secure unsecured creditors' consent is not the same as a power to force acceptance of a scaled-down settlement. Section 18(8) gives the scheme binding effect, yet that effect does not extend to rewriting debt obligations without consent or express statutory authority. The Companies Act, 1956 voting mechanism was treated as inapplicable to the BIFR process. en-us Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:20:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183324 A sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 binds creditors for implementation, and Section 22 suspends enforcement during the rehabilitation period, but it does not itself authorise compulsory reduction of an unsecured creditor's contractual debt. The absence of a requirement to secure unsecured creditors' consent is not the same as a power to force acceptance of a scaled-down settlement. Section 18(8) gives the scheme binding effect, yet that effect does not extend to rewriting debt obligations without consent or express statutory authority. The Companies Act, 1956 voting mechanism was treated as inapplicable to the BIFR process. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183324