https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193819 Disputes arising directly from implementation of a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under SICA, including the identity of promoters entitled to exercise a buy-back right, fall within the BIFR's exclusive jurisdiction because only the BIFR may clarify, modify, or remove implementation difficulties. The Company Law Board therefore could not determine that question under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. Where share allotment and capital restructuring formed part of the sanctioned scheme and the BIFR had granted exemption from compliance with procedural requirements, the Company Law Board could not treat the allotment to IDBI as ultra vires or defeat the scheme in collateral proceedings. en-us Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 18:29:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193819 Disputes arising directly from implementation of a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under SICA, including the identity of promoters entitled to exercise a buy-back right, fall within the BIFR's exclusive jurisdiction because only the BIFR may clarify, modify, or remove implementation difficulties. The Company Law Board therefore could not determine that question under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. Where share allotment and capital restructuring formed part of the sanctioned scheme and the BIFR had granted exemption from compliance with procedural requirements, the Company Law Board could not treat the allotment to IDBI as ultra vires or defeat the scheme in collateral proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193819