https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383494 A compromise and arrangement scheme could not be used to dilute the special statutory protections governing public deposits, because fixed deposit holders form a separate protected class under the deposit regime and their rights cannot be recast under the general scheme provisions. The challenge to the scheme therefore failed on that ground. After transfer of the proceedings, the matter remained to be decided under the Companies Act, 1956 as originally filed, and the transfer did not convert it into a fresh proceeding under the Companies Act, 2013. SEBI's absence did not vitiate the order, since the Regional Director and Central Government were the relevant authorities for objections in such proceedings. en-us Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jul 2019 08:31:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383494 A compromise and arrangement scheme could not be used to dilute the special statutory protections governing public deposits, because fixed deposit holders form a separate protected class under the deposit regime and their rights cannot be recast under the general scheme provisions. The challenge to the scheme therefore failed on that ground. After transfer of the proceedings, the matter remained to be decided under the Companies Act, 1956 as originally filed, and the transfer did not convert it into a fresh proceeding under the Companies Act, 2013. SEBI's absence did not vitiate the order, since the Regional Director and Central Government were the relevant authorities for objections in such proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383494