https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413591 In liquidation, the ninety-day timeline in Regulation 2B(1) for proposing a compromise or arrangement under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as directory, not mandatory. The Code does not impose a rigid statutory deadline for submitting such a scheme, and where the proposal has not yet been considered on merits, the liquidator must place it before the creditors for substantive consideration. Because repeated sale attempts had not produced a successful outcome, the resolution and value-maximisation objectives required the scheme to be examined without delay, and the delay-based objection was rejected. en-us Mon, 04 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Oct 2021 17:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413591 In liquidation, the ninety-day timeline in Regulation 2B(1) for proposing a compromise or arrangement under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as directory, not mandatory. The Code does not impose a rigid statutory deadline for submitting such a scheme, and where the proposal has not yet been considered on merits, the liquidator must place it before the creditors for substantive consideration. Because repeated sale attempts had not produced a successful outcome, the resolution and value-maximisation objectives required the scheme to be examined without delay, and the delay-based objection was rejected. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 04 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413591