https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459167 The Delhi HC refused to stay a CDR scheme for an IT infrastructure company facing winding up proceedings under section 433(e) of the Companies Act. The court held that revival should be preferred over liquidation, noting the company employed 3500 workers supporting 20,000 dependents. While bondholders (unsecured creditors) opposed the scheme favoring secured CDR lenders, the court emphasized that winding up should be a last resort. The CDR scheme implementation was permitted immediately, with the undertaking given on 16-9-2013 discharged, though pooled security sales require prior court approval. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Dec 2024 19:05:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459167 The Delhi HC refused to stay a CDR scheme for an IT infrastructure company facing winding up proceedings under section 433(e) of the Companies Act. The court held that revival should be preferred over liquidation, noting the company employed 3500 workers supporting 20,000 dependents. While bondholders (unsecured creditors) opposed the scheme favoring secured CDR lenders, the court emphasized that winding up should be a last resort. The CDR scheme implementation was permitted immediately, with the undertaking given on 16-9-2013 discharged, though pooled security sales require prior court approval. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459167