https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276422 A Special Officer appointed under court supervision cannot, without prior court direction, bind a company by a compromise or settlement that may affect its management or assets. Shareholders may intervene and object where their interests in the company are implicated, and leave to intervene was properly granted. The proposed settlement and arbitration arrangement were also defective because they lacked proper authority and compliance with the procedural requirements for referring a pending suit to arbitration, including the written application contemplated by the Arbitration Act, 1940. The objection based on partnership authority was rejected only to the extent of the partner's signature, but the arrangement still failed for want of court sanction and statutory compliance. en-us Mon, 21 Jun 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Nov 2018 13:11:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276422 A Special Officer appointed under court supervision cannot, without prior court direction, bind a company by a compromise or settlement that may affect its management or assets. Shareholders may intervene and object where their interests in the company are implicated, and leave to intervene was properly granted. The proposed settlement and arbitration arrangement were also defective because they lacked proper authority and compliance with the procedural requirements for referring a pending suit to arbitration, including the written application contemplated by the Arbitration Act, 1940. The objection based on partnership authority was rejected only to the extent of the partner's signature, but the arrangement still failed for want of court sanction and statutory compliance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 21 Jun 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276422