SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family  ||  J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation  ||  Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable  ||  Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail  ||  Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence  ||  Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla  ||  Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator    

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

Singapore HC preemptively restrains creditor meeting

Company

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.

Tags : SINGAPORE   RESTRAINT   CREDITOR MEETING   PREEMPT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved