https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460079 The court determined it lacked authority to stay criminal proceedings against a company and its directors under Section 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, after a scheme of arrangement was sanctioned. Under Section 392, the court retained broad supervisory powers to ensure proper implementation of the scheme but denied the stay of proceedings due to the applicant's non-compliance with financial obligations. Relief was granted conditionally, requiring the applicant to repay debts by a specified date, with potential contempt proceedings for failure to comply. The court emphasized the need for discretion in exercising its supervisory role. en-us Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jan 2025 14:55:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460079 The court determined it lacked authority to stay criminal proceedings against a company and its directors under Section 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, after a scheme of arrangement was sanctioned. Under Section 392, the court retained broad supervisory powers to ensure proper implementation of the scheme but denied the stay of proceedings due to the applicant's non-compliance with financial obligations. Relief was granted conditionally, requiring the applicant to repay debts by a specified date, with potential contempt proceedings for failure to comply. The court emphasized the need for discretion in exercising its supervisory role. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460079