Tel. HC: Constitutional Validity of Section 38(2) of RP Act and Rule 5.7.1 of ECI’s Handbook Upheld  ||  MP HC: Power Exercised u/s 319 of CrPC Must Come Before Acquittal Order in Case of Joint Result  ||  Del. HC: Order of CIC Directing CBDT to Give Information Regarding Ram Janmabhoomi Trust Set Aside  ||  Ker HC: In Non-Performance of Agreement, Buyer to Get Charge Over Property For Paying Purchase Price  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Reinstate Ayurvedic Doctors Who Haven’t Attained 62 Years of Age  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Accrual Time For Taxing Income to Be Postponed Till Dispute’s Adjudication  ||  Supreme Court: Distributor Not An Agent But An Independent Contractor  ||  Ker. HC: No Member of Hindu Public Can Claim to Perform Services That Only Archakas Can Perform  ||  Bom HC: Emp. to Ensure That Minor Mistakes Due to Candidate’s Disability Shouldn’t Lead to Job Loss  ||  SC Criticises Centre For Not Specifying Range of Rates For Treatment in Pvt. Hospitals & Clinics    

Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd and other matters - (10 Dec 2015)

Singapore HC preemptively restrains creditor meeting


Singapore High Court granted an order of restraint against creditors of a company in receivership, installing, essentially, a moratorium till the Applicants could restructure and rescue the company. Under Section 210(10) of the Companies Act, the court is empowered to restrain any such creditor meetings that could jeopardize attempts to revive the company, save when a resolution for winding up of the company had already been passed or agreement reached between the company and its creditors. The Court concluded that for exercise of its power, there must be a proposal for compromise or arrangement only, holding of a meeting was not a prerequisite. Determining the proposal of the Applicants to be sufficiently feasible under a “broad brush assessment” and nothing to show that the proposal was not bona fide, restraint order for 10 weeks was passed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved