https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415595 Appeals filed under Section 10F against Company Law Board orders passed before the Companies Act, 2013 transfer regime remained maintainable before the High Court under Section 434(1)(b), and were not required to be transferred under Section 434(1)(c). The execution orders were upheld because they merely enforced a final exit scheme under Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956; the Company Law Board could execute its own order under Section 634A, the functus officio objection failed, Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act did not bar enforcement on the facts, and Order XXI CPC was not applicable in the manner urged. en-us Tue, 25 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Dec 2021 08:54:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415595 Appeals filed under Section 10F against Company Law Board orders passed before the Companies Act, 2013 transfer regime remained maintainable before the High Court under Section 434(1)(b), and were not required to be transferred under Section 434(1)(c). The execution orders were upheld because they merely enforced a final exit scheme under Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956; the Company Law Board could execute its own order under Section 634A, the functus officio objection failed, Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act did not bar enforcement on the facts, and Order XXI CPC was not applicable in the manner urged. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 25 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415595