https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431943 A subsisting NCLAT restraint order under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as binding and was held to bar both the institution and continuation of arbitration proceedings, including a Section 11 petition, because no stay had been granted by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the restraint operated broadly against fresh and pending proceedings involving IL&FS and its group companies, and that claims said to arise after the cut-off date were not exempt from the prohibition. The limited scope of Section 11 jurisdiction could not override the operative restraint directions, so the request for reference to arbitration was refused. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Dec 2022 11:07:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431943 A subsisting NCLAT restraint order under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as binding and was held to bar both the institution and continuation of arbitration proceedings, including a Section 11 petition, because no stay had been granted by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the restraint operated broadly against fresh and pending proceedings involving IL&FS and its group companies, and that claims said to arise after the cut-off date were not exempt from the prohibition. The limited scope of Section 11 jurisdiction could not override the operative restraint directions, so the request for reference to arbitration was refused. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431943